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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-05-15 · Postal Service TM · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

67,174 words·~305 min read·/register/2008/05/15/08-1268

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

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Repositionable Notes Transitioned from an Experimental Test to a Permanent Classification AGENCY: Postal Service TM . ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On February 27, 2008, the Postal Service TM , in accordance with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, gave notice to the Postal Regulatory Commission, that the Governors of the Postal Service established Repositionable Notes
(RPNs)as a permanent classification. The 3″ by 3″ removable, paper notes are an optional feature for commercial First-Class Mail®, Periodicals, and Standard Mail®. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol A. Lunkins at 202-268-7262. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Over a three-year testing period, RPNs have proven compatible with postal automation letter and flat processing equipment. The removable notes can be mailed on postcards, envelopes, flats, catalogs, magazines, and newspapers to highlight important information or special offers. The notes are easily removed so that customers can keep the information handy. RPNs add to the value of mail as an advertising medium and contribute directly to net postal revenue. The use of RPNs has aided postal customers with increasing brand awareness and generated sales and repeat business for their organizations. The Postal Service adopts the following changes to the *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service* , Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), which is incorporated by reference in the *Code of Federal Regulations* . See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001. 2. Revise the following sections of the * Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, * Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)as follows: 700 Special Standards 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems [ *Add new 21.0 Repositionable Notes section, as follows:* ] 21.0 Repositionable Notes
(RPNs)21.1 Use RPNs must meet all of the following standards: a. RPNs may be attached to letter- and flat-size commercial First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Periodicals mailpieces. b. For letter-size mailpieces, attach a single RPN to the address side of the mailpiece as specified in Exhibit 21.1b. Exhibit 21.1b Placing RPNs on Letters [ *See exhibit on Postal Explorer at pe.usps.com by clicking on* Federal Register *Notices” in the left frame.* c. For flat-size mailpieces, a single RPN may be attached to either the address side or nonaddress side of the mailpiece and attached in the locations described and shown in Exhibit 21.3g1 and Exhibit 21.3g2. d. RPNs are included as an integral part of the mailpiece for weight and postage price computation purposes. e. The written and graphic characteristics of the notes are considered when determining eligibility of mailpieces mailed at the Standard Mail and Nonprofit Standard Mail prices. f. Attach the RPNs to all pieces in the mailing. 21.2 Mailpiece Characteristics Each mailpiece must: a. Not be in a plastic wrapper (e.g., polybag, polywrap, or shrinkwrap). b. Be letter-size (including cards) or flat-size. 21.3 RPN Characteristics RPNs must: a. Measure 3 inches by 3 inches, plus or minus 1/8 inch for either dimension. b. Not contain phosphorescent or red fluorescent colorants. c. Be adhered with a minimum of 3/4 inch (with a tolerance of 1/16 inch) adhesive strip across the top portion on the reverse side of the note. d. Not be placed in a manner that interferes with the delivery address, price markings, or postage and must not display a specific address or ZIP Code. References to general landmarks are permissible. e. Not be manually affixed. f. On letter-size mailpieces: 1. Position the RPN parallel with the length of the mailpiece. 2. Affix RPNs with labeling equipment to ensure adequate adhesion. 3. Place the RPN to the left of the delivery address, no closer than 3/8 inch from the left edge of the delivery address. 4. Place the RPN at least 1/2 inch (with a tolerance of 1/8 inch) from the bottom and left edges of the mailpiece. g. On flat-size mailpieces: 1. Affix RPNs with labeling equipment to ensure adequate adhesion. 2. If the RPN is placed on the address side of the mailpiece, position the RPN according to Exhibit 21.3g1. Exhibit 21.3g1 Placing RPNs on Flats—Address Side *[See exhibit on Postal Explorer at pe.usps.com by clicking on* “ Federal Register *Notices'' in the left frame.]* 2. If the RPN is placed on the nonaddressed side of the mailpiece, position the RPN according to Exhibit 21.3g2. Exhibit 21.3g2 Placing RPNs on Flats—Nonaddress Side *[See exhibit on Postal Explorer at pe.usps.com by clicking on* “ Federal Register *Notices'' in the left frame.]* 21.4 RPNs on Automation-Price Mailpieces 21.4.1 Letter-Size Mailpieces Letter-size mailpieces with RPNs claiming automation prices must meet the standards in 21.1 through 21.3, 201.3.0, and the following additional standards: a. Each mailpiece must be rectangular and have a surface smoothness of 195 Shefield Units or smoother. b. *Enveloped mailpieces.* Each mailpiece prepared in an envelope must be constructed from paperstock having a basis weight of 20 pounds or greater. Window envelopes must have a closed panel made of polystyrene or glassine. Each enveloped mailpiece is limited to the following dimensions: 1. For height, no less than 4 1/8 inches and no more than 6 inches high. 2. For length, no less than 8 inches and no more than 9 1/2 inches long. 3. For thickness, no less than 0.02 inch and no more than 0.125 inch thick. c. *Oversize cards.* Each mailpiece prepared as an oversize card is limited to the following dimensions: 1. For height, no less than 4 1/2 inches and no more than 6 inches high. 2. For length, no less than 8 1/2 inches and no more than 9 inches long. 3. For thickness, no less than 0.009 inch thick (cards 5 3/4 inches or more in height must be no less than 0.012 inch thick.) 21.4.2 Flat-Size Mailpieces Flat-size mailpieces with RPNs claiming automation prices must meet the standards in 21.1 through 21.3 and 301.3.0. 21.5 Prices First-Class Mail letters and flats—$0.005 Periodicals letters and flats—$0.015 Standard Mail letters and flats—$0.015 21.6 Compliance *[Revise the text of 21.6a and 21.6b, as follows:]* Mailers must comply as follows: a. RPNs must be obtained from an approved RPN vendor (see *www.usps.com* for a listing of approved vendors). Prospective vendors can obtain USPS standards and test procedures from USPS Engineering (see 608.8.0 for address). Testing must be performed by a certified independent laboratory. b. Mailers must present evidence at the time of mailing to show that their RPNs have been supplied by an approved vendor. The vendor name on the reverse side of the note will be sufficient as evidence; in lieu of the vendor name printed on the notes, an invoice from the approved vendor for purchase of the RPNs will constitute such evidence. c. As part of each mailing, mailers must include two pieces addressed to the manager, USPS Engineering Letter Technology, Attn: RPN Sample (see 608.8.0 for address). *[Revise the title of 709, as follows:]* 709 Experimental Classifications and Prices *[Delete 3.0 in its entirety]* Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-10420 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED 41 CFR Parts 51-3 and 51-4 RIN 3037-AA04 Change in Investigatory Procedures AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the Committee) has deliberated and voted to clarify the Committee's role regarding oversight of nonprofit agencies within the AbilityOne Program. Previously, the Committee had authorized the designated Central Nonprofit Agencies
(CNAs)to perform some oversight responsibilities of AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies. However, through this action, the Committee assumes sole responsibility for official Program oversight including inspecting and investigating alleged violations by the nonprofit agencies. This action is taken to address a General Accountability Office
(GAO)report recommendation aimed at improving oversight of the AbilityOne Program. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Committee office is located at Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lockard, General Counsel, by telephone
(703)603-7740, or by facsimile at
(703)603-0030, or by mail at the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee's statutory authority includes making rules and regulations necessary to carry out the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
(JWOD)Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c). The Committee implements the purpose of the Act to provide employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other severe disabilities through the manufacture and delivery of products and services to the Federal Government. The Committee has designated two Central Nonprofit Agencies (CNAs), National Industries for the Blind
(NIB)and NISH (serving people with a wide range of disabilities) to assist in the program's implementation and to represent their respective qualified nonprofit agencies nationwide. These qualified nonprofit agencies employ people who are blind or severely disabled to produce the products and provide the services the Committee determines are suitable for procurement by the Government. In January of 2007, GAO released a Report to Congressional Requesters entitled “Federal Disability Assistance: Stronger Federal Oversight Could Help Assure Multiple Programs' Accountability” (GAO-07-236). In response to the request from Congress, GAO reviewed four federal employment related programs aimed at helping people with disabilities obtain jobs. The AbilityOne was one of the four programs reviewed by GAO. The GAO's tasks, specific to the Committee, were to assess the extent to which performance goals and measures were established and to assess the extent of the Committee's oversight procedures over the CNAs. In performing its function for Congressional Requesters, the GAO found that the Committee delegates most of its oversight responsibilities to the two CNAs. Although the Committee retained some authority to investigate the nonprofit agencies for possible violations of the Committee's regulations, the majority of oversight of the qualified nonprofit agencies was done by the CNAs who also represent the interests of the nonprofit agencies to the Committee and other Federal agencies. The GAO concluded that this arrangement, as well as the fact that the CNAs received a percentage of the total value of contracts from the affiliated nonprofit agencies, raised questions about the CNAs independence and gave the CNAs little incentive to identify regulatory violations because that might result in the nonprofit agencies losing contracts and thus losing their ability to pay the CNAs a fee. This interpretive rule is a Committee action to address GAO's concerns about the Committee's oversight procedures of the CNAs. *Executive Order 12866:* This agency has made the determination that this rule is not significant for the purposes of EO 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act:* The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) that the statute does not apply to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. This final rule simply changes the investigatory authority from the Central Nonprofit Agencies to the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), this rule of agency organization, procedure and practice is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. The Committee also finds that the 30-day delay in effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), is inapplicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. List of Subjects 41 CFR Part 51-3 Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities. 41 CFR Part 51-4 Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 51-3—CENTRAL NONPROFIT AGENCIES 1. The authority citation for part 51-3 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 46-48c. 2. In § 51-3.2 revise paragraph
(j)to read as follows: § 51-3.2 Responsibilities under the AbilityOne Program.
(j)Monitor and assist its nonprofit agencies to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements to fully participate in the program. Conduct assistance visits with its nonprofits as necessary and provide the Committee with the results and recommendations of such visits. PART 51-4—NONPROFIT AGENCIES 3. The authority citation for part 51-4 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 46-48c. § 51-4.3 [Amended] 4. In § 51-4.3 paragraph (b)(4), remove the word “inspection” and add in its place the word “review”. § 51-4.5 [Amended] 5. Section 51-4.5(a) is amended by: A. Removing the words “appropriate central nonprofit agency” and adding in their place the word “Committee”; and B. Removing the second and third sentences. Dated: May 9, 2008. Earnestine Ballard, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-10770 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents. DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection. The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief Executive Officer of Community Effective date of modification Community No. Arizona: Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Town of Buckeye (07-09-1734P) December 7, 2007, December 14, 2007, *West Valley View* The Honorable Bobby Bryant, Mayor, Town of Buckeye, 100 North Apache Road, Suite A, Buckeye, AZ 85326 December 19, 2007 040039 Mohave (FEMA Docket No.: B-7754) City of Kingman (08-09-0423X) (06-09-BH12P) October 25, 2007, November 1, 2007, *The Kingman Daily Miner* The Honorable Lester Byram, Mayor, City of Kingman, 310 North Fourth Street, Kingman, AZ 86401 February 7, 2008 040060 Pinal (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Casa Grande (07-09-1769P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *Copper Basin News* The Honorable Robert M. Jackson, Mayor, City of Casa Grande, 510 East Florence Boulevard, Casa Grande, AZ 85222 December 5, 2007 040080 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Prescott (07-09-1688P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Rowle Simmons, Mayor, City of Prescott, 201 South Cortez Street, Prescott, AZ 86303 February 21, 2008 040098 California: Alameda (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Hayward (08-09-0157P) November 21, 2007, November 28, 2007, *The Daily Review* The Honorable Michael Sweeney, Mayor, City of Hayward, 777 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541 February 27, 2008 065033 Colorado: Mesa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Grand Junction (07-08-0859P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *The Daily Sentinel* Mr. Jim Doody, Mayor, City of Grand Junction, 250 North Fifth Street, Grand Junction, CO 81501 March 13, 2008 080117 Mesa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Mesa County (07-08-0859P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *The Daily Sentinel* The Honorable Craig J. Meis, Chairman, Mesa County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 20000, Grand Junction, CO 81502-5010 March 13, 2008 080115 Florida: Manatee (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Manatee County (07-04-4406P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *The Bradenton Herald* The Honorable Amy E. Stein, Chairman, Manatee County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34206-1000 March 13, 2008 120153 Okaloosa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Okaloosa County (07-04-4369P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Northwest Florida Daily News* Mr. James D. Curry, County Administrator, Okaloosa County, 1804 Lewis Turner Boulevard, Suite 400, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 February 21, 2008 120173 Polk (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Winter Haven (07-04-5471P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *News Chief* The Honorable Nathaniel Birdsong, Mayor, City of Winter Haven, P.O. Box 2277, Winter Haven, FL 33883 March 13, 2008 120271 Georgia: Columbia (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Columbia County (07-04-4563P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *Columbia County News-Times* The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 498, Evans, GA 30809 October 30, 2007 130059 Coweta (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Newnan (07-04-4787P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *The Times-Herald* The Honorable Keith Brady, Mayor, City of Newnan, City Hall, 25 LaGrange Street, Newnan, GA 30263 February 21, 2008 130062 DeKalb (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Atlanta (07-04-3101P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *The Atlanta Journal and Constitution* The Honorable Shirley Franklin, Mayor, City of Atlanta, 55 Trinity Avenue, Suite 2500, Atlanta, GA 30303 February 20, 2008 135157 DeKalb (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Decatur (07-04-3101P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *Dunwoody Crier* The Honorable Bill Floyd, Mayor, City of Decatur, P.O. Box 220, Decatur, GA 30031 February 20, 2008 135159 DeKalb (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of DeKalb County (07-04-3101P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *Dunwoody Crier* The Honorable Burrell Ellis, Chairman, DeKalb County Board of Commissioners, 1300 Commerce Drive, Decatur, GA 30030 February 20, 2008 130065 Murray (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Murray County (07-04-2594P) November 16, 2007, November 23, 2007, *The Dalton Daily Citizen* The Honorable Jim Welch, Murray County Commissioner, P.O. Box 1129, Chatsworth, GA 30705 February 22, 2008 130366 Iowa: Linn (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Marion (07-07-1087P) November 21, 2007, November 28, 2007, *Cedar Rapids Gazette* The Honorable John Nieland, Mayor, City of Marion, 195 35th Street, Marion, IA 52302 February 27, 2008 190191 Linn (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Linn County (07-07-1087P) November 21, 2007, November 28, 2007, *Cedar Rapids Gazette* The Honorable Linda Langston, Chairperson, Linn County Board of Supervisors, 930 First Street, Southwest, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 February 27, 2008 190829 Kansas: Marshall (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Marysville (07-07-0767P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *The Marysville Advocate* The Honorable Bernie Krug, Mayor, City of Marysville, 209 North Eighth Street, Marysville, KS 66508 March 13, 2008 200212 Marshall (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Marshall County (07-07-0767P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *The Marysville Advocate* The Honorable Michael J. Keating, Head Commissioner, Marshall County, 1201 Broadway, Marysville, KS 66508 March 13, 2008 200210 Maryland: Frederick (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Town of Emmitsburg (07-03-0468P) December 13, 2007, December 20, 2007, *The Frederick News-Post* The Honorable James E. Hoover, Mayor, Town of Emmitsburg, 300A-1 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 21727 December 31, 2007 240029 Frederick (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Frederick County (07-03-0468P) December 13, 2007, December 20, 2007, *The Frederick News-Post* Ms. Jan Gardner, President, Board of Commissioners, Frederick County, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, MD 21701 December 31, 2007 240027 Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (07-09-1179P) November 8, 2007, November 15, 2007, *Las Vegas Review-Journal* The Honorable Rory Reid, Chair, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89106 February 14, 2008 320003 North Carolina: Wake (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Wake County (06-04-C341P) December 10, 2007, December 17, 2007, *News and Observer* Mr. David C. Cooke, Manager, Wake County, 337 South Salisbury Street, Suite 1100, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 December 3, 2007 370368 Ohio: Greene (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Xenia (07-05-5432P) November 3, 2007, November 10, 2007, *Xenia Daily Gazette* The Honorable Phyllis Pennewitt, Mayor, City of Xenia, 101 North Detroit Street, Xenia, OH 45385 February 11, 2008 390197 Greene (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Greene County (07-05-5432P) November 3, 2007, November 10, 2007, *Xenia Daily Gazette* The Honorable Ralph Harper, President, Greene County Board of Commissioners, 35 Greene Street, Xenia, OH 45385 February 11, 2008 390193 Oklahoma: Payne (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Stillwater (07-06-0679P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Stillwater NewsPress* The Honorable Roger L. McMillan, Mayor, City of Stillwater, 723 South Lewis Street, Stillwater, OK 74076 November 30, 2007 405380 Payne (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Stillwater County (07-06-0679P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Stillwater NewsPress* The Honorable Gloria A. Hesser, County Commissioner, District No. 2, Stillwater, 315 West Sixth Street, Suite 203, Stillwater, OK 74074 November 30, 2007 400493 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Sand Springs (07-06-2114P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Tulsa World* The Honorable Robert L. Walker, Mayor, City of Sand Springs, P.O. Box 338, Sand Springs, OK 74063 November 30, 2007 400211 Tulsa (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Tulsa County (07-06-2114P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Tulsa World* The Honorable Randi Miller, Chair, Tulsa County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Denver Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74103 November 30, 2007 400462 Pennsylvania: Chester (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Township of West Goshen (07-03-1259P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *Daily Local News* The Honorable Robert White, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, West Goshen Township, 1025 Paoli Pike, West Chester, PA 19380-4699 February 21, 2008 420293 Montgomery (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Township of Plymouth (07-03-1103P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *The Times Herald* The Honorable Alexander Fazzini, Chair, Plymouth Township Council, 700 Belvoir Road, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 February 20, 2008 420955 Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (07-02-0993P) November 15, 2007, November 22, 2007, *The San Juan Star* The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 82, La Fortaleza, San Juan, PR 00901 February 21, 2008 720000 Texas: Kendall (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) Unincorporated areas of Kendall County (07-06-0875P) November 16, 2007, November 23, 2007, *The Boerne Star* The Honorable Eddie John Vogt, Kendall County Judge, Kendall County Courthouse, 201 East San Antonio Street, Boerne, TX 78006 November 29, 2007 480417 Randall (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Canyon (07-06-1472P) December 16, 2007, December 23, 2007, *The Canyon News* The Honorable Quinn Alexander, Mayor, City of Canyon, 3011 6th Street, Canyon, TX 79015 March 24, 2008 480533 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Grapevine (07-06-1696P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *Northeast Tarrant Star-Telegram* The Honorable William D. Tate, Mayor, City of Grapevine, P.O. Box 95104, Grapevine, TX 76099 November 21, 2007 480598 Travis (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) City of Lakeway (07-06-1024P) December 6, 2007, December 13, 2007, *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Steve Swan, Mayor, City of Lakeway, 1102 Lohman's Crossing, Lakeway, TX 78734 December 20, 2007 481303 West Virginia: Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-7766) Unincorporated areas of Jefferson County (07-03-0824P) December 13, 2007, December 20, 2007, *The Journal* The Honorable Frances Morgan, President, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 250, Charles Town, WV 25414 March 20, 2008 540065 Wisconsin: Columbia & Sauk (FEMA Docket No.: B-7761) City of Wisconsin Dells (07-05-4282P) November 14, 2007, November 21, 2007, *Wisconsin Dells Events* The Honorable Eric Helland, Mayor, City of Wisconsin Dells, P.O. Box 655, Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965 November 30, 2007 550065 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 7, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10870 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7780] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changed BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief Executive Officer of Community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Madison Unincorporated areas of Madison County (07-04-6424P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Madison County Record* The Honorable Mike Gillespie, Chairman, Madison County Commission, 100 Northside Square, Huntsville, AL 35801 July 14, 2008 010151 Arizona: Pinal City of Casa Grande (08-09-0418P) April 9, 2008, April 16, 2008, *Copper Basin News* The Honorable Robert M. Jackson, Mayor, City of Casa Grande, 510 East Florence Boulevard, Casa Grande, AZ 85222 April 25, 2008 040080 Colorado: El Paso City of Colorado Springs (07-08-0678P) April 2, 2008, April 9, 2008, *El Paso County News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 March 25, 2008 080060 El Paso City of Colorado Springs (07-08-0679P) March 5, 2008, March 12, 2008, *El Paso County News* The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 July 11, 2008 080060 Jefferson City of Lakewood (08-08-0234P) March 20, 2008, March 27, 2008, *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Bob Murphy, Mayor, City of Lakewood, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80226-3127 March 11, 2008 085075 Jefferson City of Lakewood (08-08-0276P) April 10, 2008, April 17, 2008, *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Bob Murphy, Mayor, City of Lakewood, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80226-3127 August 18, 2008 085075 Jefferson City of Wheat Ridge (08-08-0276P) April 10, 2008, April 17, 2008, *The Golden Transcript* The Honorable Jerry DiTullio, Mayor, City of Wheat Ridge, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 August 18, 2008 085079 Summit Town of Silverthorne (07-08-0747P) April 4, 2008, April 11, 2008, *Summit County Journal* The Honorable Dave Koop, Mayor, Town of Silverthorne, P.O. Box 1002, Silverthorne, CO 80498 August 11, 2008 080201 Florida: Polk City of Lakeland (08-04-0475P) February 27, 2008, March 5, 2008, *Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Ralph L. Fletcher, Mayor, City of Lakeland, 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, FL 33801 February 20, 2008 120267 Polk Unincorporated areas of Polk County (08-04-0620P) February 13, 2008, February 20, 2008, *Polk County Democrat* The Honorable Bob English, Chairman, Polk County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, FL 33831 May 21, 2008 120261 Sarasota City of Sarasota (08-04-0422P) March 6, 2008, March 13, 2008, *Sarasota Herald-Tribune* The Honorable Lou Ann Palmer, Mayor, City of Sarasota, 1565 First Street, Suite 101, Sarasota, FL 34236 February 28, 2008 125150 Sarasota City of Sarasota (08-04-0621P) April 4, 2008, April 11, 2008, *Sarasota Herald-Tribune* The Honorable Lou Ann Palmer, Mayor, City of Sarasota, 1565 First Street, Room 101, Sarasota, FL 34236 March 28, 2008 125150 Georgia: Barrow Unincorporated areas of Barrow County (08-04-0478P) March 5, 2008, March 12, 2008, *Barrow County News* The Honorable Douglas H. Garrison, Chairman, Barrow County, Board of Commissioners, 233 East Broad Street, Winder, GA 30680 July 11, 2008 130497 Hawaii: Hawaii Unincorporated areas of Hawaii County (08-09-0081P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Hawaii Tribune-Herald* The Honorable Harry Kim, Mayor, Hawaii County, 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215, Hilo, HI 96720 August 8, 2008 155166 Hawaii Unincorporated areas of Hawaii County (08-09-0102P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Hawaii Tribune-Herald* The Honorable Harry Kim, Mayor, Hawaii County, 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215, Hilo, HI 96720 March 25, 2008 155166 Idaho: Ada Unincorporated areas of Ada County (07-10-0641P) April 4, 2008, April 11, 2008, *Idaho Statesman* The Honorable Fred Tilman, Chairman, Ada County Board of Commissioners, 200 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 August 11, 2008 160001 Ada City of Meridian (07-10-0641P) April 4, 2008, April 11, 2008, *Idaho Statesman* The Honorable Tammy de Weerd, Mayor, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642-2300 August 11, 2008 160180 Illinois: DuPage City of Aurora (08-05-0818P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Beacon News* The Honorable Thomas J. Weisner, Mayor, City of Aurora, 44 East Downer Place, Aurora, IL 60507 March 25, 2008 170320 DuPage Village of Glen Ellyn (08-05-1365P) April 11, 2008, April 18, 2008, *Wheaton Sun* The Honorable Gregory S. Mathews, President, Village of Glen Ellyn, 535 Duane Street, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 August 18, 2008 170207 Grundy Unincorporated areas of Grundy County (08-05-0597P) March 21, 2008, March 28, 2008, *Herald News* The Honorable Francis E. Halpin, Chairman, Grundy County Board, 1320 Union Street, Morris, IL 60450 April 14, 2008 170256 Grundy City of Morris (08-05-0597P) March 21, 2008, March 28, 2008, *Herald News* The Honorable Richard Kopczick, Mayor, City of Morris, 320 Wauponsee Street, Morris, IL 60450 April 14, 2008 170263 Will City of Joliet (07-05-5618P) March 20, 2008, March 27, 2008, *Herald News* The Honorable Arthur Schultz, Mayor, City of Joliet, 150 West Jefferson Street, Joliet, IL 60431 March 10, 2008 170702 Will Village of Mokena (08-05-0765P) March 20, 2008, March 27, 2008, *Herald News* The Honorable Joseph W. Werner, Village President, Village of Mokena, 11004 Carpenter Street, Mokena, IL 60448 April 14, 2008 170705 Will City of Naperville (08-05-0551P) March 6, 2008, March 13, 2008, *Naperville Sun* The Honorable A. George Pradel, Mayor, City of Naperville, 400 South Eagle Street, Naperville, IL 60540 February 29, 2008 170213 Will Village of Shorewood (08-05-1364P) March 28, 2008, April 4, 2008, *Herald News* The Honorable Richard E. Chapman, President, Village of Shorewood, 903 West Jefferson Street, Shorewood, IL 60404 March 24, 2008 170712 Will Unincorporated areas of Will County (08-05-0551P) March 6, 2008, March 13, 2008, *Naperville Sun* The Honorable Lawrence M. Walsh, Will County Executive, 302 North Chicago Street, Joliet, IL 60432 February 29, 2008 170695 Kansas: Sedgwick City of Wichita (07-07-1695P) April 4, 2008, April 11, 2008, *Wichita Eagle* The Honorable Carl Brewer, Mayor, City of Wichita, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 March 27, 2008 200328 Massachusetts: Barnstable Town of Falmouth (07-01-1083P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Cape Cod Times* The Honorable Kevin E. Murphy, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, 59 Town Hall Square, Falmouth, MA 02540 August 8, 2008 255211 Minnesota: Dakota City of Lakeville (08-05-0668P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Lakeville Sun Current* The Honorable Holly Dahl, Mayor, City of Lakeville, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044 March 26, 2008 270107 Missouri: Jackson City of Grain Valley (07-07-1749P) April 7, 2008, April 14, 2008, *The Blue Springs Examiner* The Honorable David Halphin, Mayor, City of Grain Valley, 711 Main Street, Grain Valley, MO 64029 August 14, 2008 290737 Taney City of Branson (07-07-1909P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Branson Daily News* The Honorable Raeanne Presley, Mayor, City of Branson, 110 West Maddux Street, Branson, MO 65616 July 14, 2008 290436 Taney City of Hollister (07-07-1909P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Branson Daily News* The Honorable David G. Tate, Mayor, City of Hollister, 312 Esplanade Street, Hollister, MO 65373 July 14, 2008 290437 Taney Unincorporated areas of Taney County (07-07-1909P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Branson Daily News* The Honorable Chuck Pennel, Presiding Commissioner, Taney County Commission, P.O. Box 383, Forsyth, MO 65653 July 14, 2008 290435 South Carolina: Greenville Unincorporated areas of Greenville County (08-04-0619P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *The Greenville News* The Honorable Butch Kirven, Chairman, Greenville County Council, 213 League Road, Simpsonville, SC 29681 July 11, 2008 450089 Richland Unincorporated areas of Richland County (07-04-3534P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Columbia Star* The Honorable Joseph McEachern, Chairman, Richland County Council, 2020 Hampton Street, Suite 4069, Columbia, SC 29202 July 14, 2008 450170 Richland Unincorporated areas of Richland County (08-04-1671P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Columbia Star* The Honorable Joseph McEachern, Chairman, Richland County Council, 2020 Hampton Street, Second Floor, Columbia, SC 29202 July 14, 2008 450170 Tennessee: Davidson Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (08-04-0137P) March 6, 2008, March 13, 2008, *The Tennessean* The Honorable Bill Purcell, Mayor, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 107 Metropolitan Courthouse, Nashville, TN 37201 July 11, 2008 470040 Madison City of Jackson (07-04-4683P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Jackson Sun* The Honorable Jerry Gist, Mayor, City of Jackson, 121 East Main Street, Suite 301, Jackson, TN 38301 March 31, 2008 470113 Wilson City of Lebanon (08-04-0116P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Wilson Post* The Honorable Donald W. Fox, Mayor, City of Lebanon, 200 North Castle Heights Avenue, Suite 100, Lebanon, TN 37087 July 21, 2008 470208 Wilson Unincorporated areas of Wilson County (08-04-0116P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Wilson Post* The Honorable Robert Dedman, Mayor, Wilson County, 228 East Main Street, Lebanon, TN 37087 July 21, 2008 470207 Texas: Collin Town of Prosper (08-06-0164P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Allen American* The Honorable Charles Niswanger, Mayor, Town of Prosper, P.O. Box 307, Prosper, TX 75078 August 8, 2008 480141 Dallas City of Coppell (07-06-2203P) April 2, 2008, April 9, 2008, *Coppell Gazette* The Honorable Douglas N. Stover, Mayor, City of Coppell, P.O. Box 9478, Coppell, TX 75019 April 24, 2008 480170 El Paso City of El Paso (07-06-2485P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *El Paso Times* The Honorable John Cook, Mayor, City of El Paso, Two Civic Center Plaza, Tenth Floor, El Paso, TX 79901 March 27, 2008 480214 Tarrant City of Bedford (08-06-1343P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Colleyville Courier* The Honorable Jim Story, Mayor, City of Bedford, 2000 Forest Ridge Drive, Bedford, TX 76021 June 13, 2008 480585 Tarrant City of Euless (08-06-1343P) March 7, 2008, March 14, 2008, *Colleyville Courier* The Honorable Mary Lib Saleh, Mayor, City of Euless, 201 North Ector Drive, Euless, TX 76039 June 13, 2008 480593 Tarrant City of Keller (08-06-0002P) March 28, 2008, April 4, 2008, *Keller Citizen* The Honorable Pat McGrail, Mayor, City of Keller, P.O. Box 770, Keller, TX 76244 August 4, 2008 480602 Travis Unincorporated areas of Travis County (07-06-1238P) April 3, 2008, April 10, 2008, *Austin American-Statesman* The Honorable Samuel T. Biscoe, Travis County Judge, 314 West 11th Street, Suite 520, Austin, TX 78701 August 8, 2008 481026 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 7, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10869 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WT Docket No. 99-217; FCC 08-87] Competitive Networks, Multiunit Premises AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commission adopts rules prohibiting telecommunications carriers from entering into contracts that would make them the exclusive provider of telecommunications services in residential multiple tenant environments (MTEs), e.g., apartment buildings, condominiums, and cooperatives. The rules also prohibit telecommunications carriers from enforcing existing exclusivity contracts. DATES: Effective July 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Reel, Wireline Competition Bureau,
(202)418-1580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Order, the Commission removes impediments to facilities-based competition to provide voice, video, and data services as intended by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and Commission precedent. As it did with video service providers ( * see Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments, * MB Docket No. 07-51, 72 FR 61129-01, 22 FCC Rcd 20235
(2007)( *Video Nonexclusivity Order* )), the Commission finds that the harm to competition from exclusivity agreements outweighs any benefit, and that such contracts are inherently unjust and unreasonable. The rule establishes regulatory parity between telecommunications carriers and cable television operators, which are already banned from entering into or enforcing arrangements to be the sole provider of video services in residential MTEs. By removing impediments to competition, and by establishing regulatory parity among likely competitors, this action should bring the benefits of competition, including competition to provide broadband Internet access services, to residents of MTEs. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Synopsis of Report and Order 1. On October 25, 2000, the Commission issued the *Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* WT Docket No. 99-217, 66 FR 2322-01, 15 FCC Rcd 22983
(2000)( *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM* ) to foster local competition pursuant to the 1996 Act, and adopted several measures to ensure that competing telecommunications providers are able to provide services in MTEs. Most notably for the purposes of this proceeding, that order prohibited carriers from entering into contracts that restrict or effectively restrict owners and managers of commercial MTEs from permitting access by competing carriers. The Commission also sought comment in several areas, including whether the prohibition on exclusive access contracts in commercial MTEs should be extended to residential settings, and whether carriers should be prohibited from enforcing exclusive access provisions in existing contracts in either commercial or residential MTEs. 2. On March 28, 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau released a public notice inviting interested parties to update the record pertaining to issues raised in the Commission's Competitive Networks proceeding in light of marketplace and industry developments. ( *Parties Asked to Refresh Record Regarding Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets,* WT Docket No. 99-217, CC Docket No. 96-98, public notice, 22 FCC Rcd 5632 (2007)). Specifically, the notice sought updates on the progress of the real estate industry's voluntary commitments aimed at improving tenants' access to alternative telecommunications carriers, and on intervening industry developments such as service bundling and integration. 3. The Commission concludes that exclusive agreements to provide telecommunications services to residential customers in MTEs harm competition and consumers without evidence of countervailing benefits, and the Commission thus prohibits carriers from entering into or enforcing such provisions. This conclusion comports with the Commission's decision in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order* to prohibit cable operators and others subject to the relevant statutory provisions from executing or enforcing existing video exclusivity provisions in contracts to serve residential multiunit premises. In an environment of increasingly competitive bundled service offerings, the importance of regulatory parity is particularly compelling in the Commission's determination to remove this impediment to fair competition. Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the competitive benefits that commercial customers enjoy by virtue of the Commission's prior prohibition of such contracts in the commercial context should not also be extended to residential users. 4. *Scope of Residential MTEs.* In the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the Commission prohibited exclusivity provisions with respect to the provision of telecommunications services in commercial MTEs. As it observed in that order, however, “some premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes.” That Commission stated that in situations “where a single access agreement covers the entire premises, the Commission finds it most consistent with the purposes of this rule to determine its status as residential or commercial by predominant use.” The Commission has continued that approach in subsequent decisions, for example granting certain section 251(c) unbundling relief for fiber deployed to “predominantly residential” multiunit premises relying on the distinctions drawn in the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM.* Consistent with that precedent, the protections against telecommunications exclusivity provisions here extend to the tenants in residential MTEs as determined by the MTE's predominant use. 5. As the Commission held in the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the guests of hotels or similar establishments are not “tenants” covered by the exclusivity ban within the meaning of the Commission's rules. Similar to the Commission's decision in the video context in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order,* and consistent with prior decisions in the telecommunications context, the Commission likewise does not find the prohibition adopted here necessary to protect guests in “hotels, or similar establishments,” since such guests tend to be transient users, for whom such a prohibition likely would not bring the same competitive benefits. For purposes of protecting consumers in residential MTEs, the prohibition on exclusive arrangements for the provision of telecommunications services does not extend to guests in hotels or similar establishments, as described in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order* at para. 7. 6. *Prohibition on Entering Into and Enforcing Exclusivity.* The Commission finds that the record leaves no doubt of the existence of exclusive arrangements for the provision of telecommunications services. These arrangements have the same harmful effects on the provision of triple play services and broadband deployment as discussed in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order,* and pose just as much of a barrier to competition where they are attached to the provision of telecommunications services as they are to the provision of video services. Such provisions can “prohibit or economically discourage consumers from seeking alternative service providers” for telecommunications services, thereby limiting consumer choice and competition. This not only could adversely affect consumers' rates, but also quality, innovation, and network redundancy. 7. Developments in the markets for telecommunications, video, and broadband services over the last several years support the conclusion to extend the ban on exclusivity to residential MTEs. At the time the Commission issued the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the Commission distinguished between residential and commercial tenants because of an inconclusive record about the likely competitive effects in residential MTEs, and cited commenter concerns that “in the residential context, potential revenue streams from any one building are typically not enough to attract competitive entry without exclusive contracts.” As the Commission has discussed at length in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order* and in other recent orders, the dramatic growth of service combinations and the “triple play” reduces the concern that a sole telecommunications service revenue stream is insufficient to generate additional competitive entry, even in the residential context. The shift from competition between stand alone services to that between service bundles, as well as the integration of service providers, supports the removal of obstacles to facilities-based entry. Given that the same facilities used to provide video and data services often can readily be used to provide telephone service, as well, denying such providers the right to do so only serves to reduce the entry incentives of competing providers, and thus competition, for each of those services. 8. In addition, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) and the goal of regulatory parity support this decision. When the Commission last addressed this issue in 2000, the Commission indicated its hope that the growth of facilities-based competition would increase the availability of advanced services. While providers have deployed broadband facilities to a tremendous degree since then, the Commission believes that its actions here will further promote that goal. Because allowing the imposition of restrictions on competitive offerings to residents in a multiunit premise would deter competitors from offering broadband service in combination with video, voice, or other telecommunications services, the Commission also finds that prohibiting carriers from entering into exclusivity contracts for the provision of telecommunications services furthers section 706's mandate to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans” as a basis for expanding the prohibition on contractual exclusivity. 9. The Commission is not persuaded by arguments that the Commission should refrain from taking any action with regard to residential MTEs. In response to the issues raised in the Competitive Networks proceeding, the real estate industry made a commitment to the Commission to develop model contracts and “best practices” to facilitate negotiations for building access, which include a firm policy not to enter into exclusive contracts. While this approach is commendable and pro competitive, the Commission does not find on this record that the effects of this voluntary commitment are not widespread, nor does it find such an unenforceable commitment sufficient to ensure the necessary competitive access. 10. The Commission previously found no evidence of benefits to competition or consumer welfare from the use of exclusive contracts in commercial settings, and the record in residential settings similarly lacks such evidence. Although the data cited in the comments recently refreshing the Competitive Networks proceeding are not detailed, that does not render the anticompetitive impact of exclusivity provisions inconsequential. Qwest reports that it is increasingly encountering residential buildings where it is prohibited to sell its voice services. Indeed, no party disputes that carriers and MTE representatives continue to enter into these contracts, and even in arguing against a prohibition, RAA introduces a survey of property owners and managers showing that two percent of the respondents admit to having at least one exclusive agreement for building access. The Commission is mindful of the concerns of some that “community-based arrangements” allow competitive providers some assurance of a steady revenue stream to justify their initial development, but, for the reasons described above, the Commission is not persuaded by such concerns in the present marketplace environment. Thus, the Commission concludes that the perpetuation of exclusivity contracts is not in the public interest. Just as the Commission concluded in the context of video programming services, the Commission finds that the benefits do not outweigh the harms, and it acts accordingly for telecommunications services. The exclusive provision of telecommunications services in residential MTEs bars competitive and new entry in the telecommunications services market and triple play market, and discourages the deployment of broadband facilities to the American public. This in turn results in higher prices and fewer competitive choices for consumers. Such limitations are inconsistent with the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act, and therefore such contracts are unjust and unreasonable practices. 11. The Commission finds that immediately prohibiting the enforcement of such provisions is more appropriate than phasing them out or waiting until contracts expire and are replaced by contracts without exclusivity provisions. The Commission agrees with commenters that such approaches would only serve to further delay the entry of competition to customers in the buildings at issue. To leave existing exclusivity contracts in effect would allow the competitive harms identified to continue for some time, even years, and the Commission believes it is in the public interest to prohibit such contracts from being enforced. Further, to the extent that exclusivity provisions prevent incumbent local exchange carriers
(LECs)from serving a building, they could be at odds with applicable carrier of last resort obligations. In addition, nothing in the record suggests that small carriers are particularly disadvantaged by exclusivity prohibitions, or that the cost/benefit analysis for consumers differs when small carriers are involved. Finally, the Commission notes that the validity of exclusivity provisions in contracts for the provision of telecommunications services to residential MTEs has been subject to question for some time. In the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the Commission found such provisions unreasonable in the context of commercial MTEs, and sought comment on the propriety of a similar prohibition for residential MTEs, including the prohibition on enforcement of existing exclusivity provisions. Thus, carriers have been on notice for more than seven years that the Commission might prohibit both their entering, and enforcement of, such provisions. 12. As the Commission found in the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* it has ample authority to prohibit exclusivity provisions in agreements for the provision of telecommunications service to residential MTEs. There, the Commission specifically found that “exclusive contracts for telecommunications service in commercial settings impede the pro-competitive purposes of the 1996 Act and appear to confer no substantial countervailing public benefits,” and thus “a carrier's agreement to such a contract is an unreasonable practice” under section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). 13. The same conclusion is applicable here because just as in the commercial MTE context, the prohibition of exclusive contracts in the provision of telecommunications services to residential MTEs furthers the same policy goals—facilitating competitive entry, lower prices, and more broadband deployment. Thus, the Commission finds that a carrier's execution or enforcement of such an exclusive access provision is an unreasonable practice and implicates the Commission's authority under section 201(b) of the Act to prohibit unreasonable practices. As with video contracts, the Commission does not limit this prohibition to future exclusivity contracts for the provision of telecommunications services, but also prohibits the enforcement of such existing contracts. In the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the Commission sought comment on whether to prohibit carriers from enforcing exclusive access provisions in existing contracts in either commercial or residential multiunit premises, including the extent of the Commission's authority to do so. The Commission concludes that it has such authority, and that it is in the public interest to prohibit the enforcement of exclusive contracts for the provision of telecommunications services to residential MTEs. 14. The Commission has authority to “modify * * * provisions of private contracts when necessary to serve the public interest.” *See, e.g., Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities,* CC Docket No. 91-141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154, 5207-10, paras. 197-208 (1994). The Commission has exercised this authority previously when private contracts violate sections 201 through 205 of the Act. As the Commission found in the *Competitive Networks Order and Further NPRM,* the exclusive access provisions at issue here “perpetuate the very `barriers to facilities-based competition' that the 1996 Act was designed to eliminate,” and appear to confer no substantial countervailing public benefits. Having for the same reasons found such exclusive contracts violate section 201 of the Act, and given the adverse competitive effects of such contracts, the Commission finds it necessary in the public interest to prohibit enforcement of such existing contracts. 15. In addition, the Commission concludes that its prohibition on the enforcement of telecommunications exclusivity contracts here does not violate the Fifth Amendment for the same reasons discussed in the *Video Nonexclusivity Order* in the context of video exclusivity provisions. In particular, such action is not a per se taking, nor does it represent a regulatory taking under the Supreme Court's framework. As is true in the video context, the prohibition on exclusivity arrangements does not prevent telecommunications carriers from utilizing the facilities they own to provide services to MTEs, nor does it prohibit other types of arrangements such as exclusive marketing arrangements. Exclusive telecommunications contracts have been under scrutiny for years, and have been prohibited by the Commission and states in certain contexts. To the extent that carriers have used exclusivity to obstruct competition, any underlying investment-backed expectations are not sufficiently longstanding or pro-competitive in nature to warrant immunity from regulation. In addition, the prohibition on enforcement of the exclusivity provisions at issue substantially advances the government interest in preventing unreasonable practices reflected in section 201(b) of the Act, and is based on weighing of the relative costs and benefits of such provisions. Moreover, the Commission notes that this action applies only to carriers seeking to enter or enforce telecommunications exclusivity contracts—the Commission is not hereby mandating access to residential or other MTEs. Thus, it finds that it has ample authority to regulate telecommunications carriers' contractual conduct even though it may have a tangential effect on MTE owners. 16. In sum, the Commission concludes that it has both a sufficient policy basis and legal authority to prohibit carriers from entering or enforcing exclusivity provisions on contracts to provide telecommunications services to residential MTEs. By adopting such a prohibition here, it furthers the competitive goals of the 1996 Act, and continues efforts to ensure that consumers in MTEs enjoy the benefits of increased competition in both telephone and video service offerings. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, WC Docket No. 99-217 (Competitive Networks) 17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM) to this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received one comment on the IRFA, from the Real Access Alliance. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)conforms to the RFA. A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order 18. This Report and Order adopts rules and provides guidance to implement sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 205, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Those sections of the Act authorize the Commission to prohibit any telecommunications carrier from enforcing or executing contracts with premises owners for provision of telecommunications service alone or in combination with other services in predominantly residential multiple tenant environments (MTEs). The Commission has found that existing and future exclusive contracts constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive entrants that would impede competition and accelerated broadband deployment, and that they constitute an unfair method of competition. The measures adopted in this Report and Order ensure that, in furtherance of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, certain contractual exclusivity provisions no longer serve as an obstacle to competitive access in the telecommunications market. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 19. Only one commenter, RAA, submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. RAA asserts that the IRFA was defective because it did not address the effects of possible outcomes on apartment building owners. 20. We disagree with RAA's assertion. In fact, the IRFA discussed apartment building owners specifically in paragraph 15. Moreover, an IRFA need only address the concerns of entities directly regulated by the Commission. The Commission does not directly regulate apartment building operators. Accordingly, even if the IRFA had not addressed the concerns of apartment building owners, it would not be defective. When an agency finds that there is no direct impact on a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the requirements of the rule, then no discussion of alternatives, less costly than the proposed rule, is required. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will Apply 21. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 22. The rules and guidance adopted by this Report and Order will ease the entry of providers of telecommunications services, including those providing the “triple play” of voice, video, and broadband Internet access service. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities directly affected by the rules adopted herein consists of wireline and wireless telecommunications carriers. Therefore, in the Report and Order, the Commission considers the impact of the rules on carriers. A description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below. 23. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data. 24. *Small Organizations.* Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 1. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 25. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange carriers
(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees) and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 26. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent LECs. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the Commission's action. 27. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 859 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities. 28. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action. 2. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers 29. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 30. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 31. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. The Commission has estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 32. *Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the broad economic census category of “Paging.” Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. In addition, according to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of “Paging and Messaging Service.” Of this total, the Commission estimates that 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and five have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be considered small. 33. We also note that, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a size standard for “small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. In this context, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved this definition. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area
(MEA)licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. An auction of MEA and Economic Area
(EA)licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. The Commission also notes that, currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. 34. *Wireless Communications Services.* This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services
(WCS)auction. A “small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million or less for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million or less for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity. 35. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio
(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. The Commission has estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 36. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service
(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 37. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* The Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses. 38. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that a small business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. Assuming this general ratio continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to 2002. 39. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service and is subject to spectrum auctions. The 220 MHz Third Report and Order adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: Three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group
(EAG)Licenses, and 875 Economic Area
(EA)Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 40. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The Commission awards “small entity” and “very small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the previous calendar years, respectively. These bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and very small entities. 41. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* The 700 MHz Guard Band Order adopted a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area
(MEA)licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 42. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. An additional size standard for “very small business” is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 43. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and the Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. Other standards also apply, as described. 44. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 45. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 46. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar years. These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 47. *Local Multipoint Distribution Service.* Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS)is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. The auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licensees as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. An additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions. There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information, the Commission concludes that the number of small LMDS licenses consists of the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers. 48. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA)licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carryover losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. The 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The Commission cannot estimate, however, the number of licenses that will be won by entities qualifying as small or very small businesses under the rules in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum. 49. *24 GHz—Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. These broader census data notwithstanding, the Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is the Commission's understanding that Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity. 50. *24 GHz—Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million. “Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. These size standards will apply to the future auction, if held. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements 51. The rule adopted in the Report and Order will require no additional reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 53. Because the Report and Order imposes no compliance or reporting requirements on any entity, only the last of the foregoing alternatives is material. The Report and Order takes note in paragraph 13 above that nothing in the record suggests that small carriers are particularly disadvantaged by exclusivity prohibitions, or that the cost/benefit analysis for consumers differs when small carriers are involved. F. Report to Congress 54. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Congressional Review Act The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Order on Remand in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Ordering Clauses 55. Accordingly, *It is ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(j), 4(i), 201, 202, 205, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 205, and 405, and pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt., that the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 99-217 is adopted, and that Part 64 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 64, is amended as set forth in Appendix B of the order. It is the Commission's intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any provision of the rules is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. 56. *It is further ordered* that the rules and the requirements of this Report and Order *shall become effective* July 14, 2008. 57. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 Communications common carriers, telecommunications, telephone. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows: PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 205, 405, and 157 nt. 2. Section 64.2500 is revised to read as follows: § 64.2500 Prohibited agreements.
(a)No common carrier shall enter into any contract, written or oral, that would in any way restrict the right of any commercial multiunit premises owner, or any agent or representative thereof, to permit any other common carrier to access and serve commercial tenants on that premises.
(b)No common carrier shall enter into or enforce any contract, written or oral, that would in any way restrict the right of any residential multiunit premises owner, or any agent or representative thereof, to permit any other common carrier to access and serve residential tenants on that premises. 2. Section 64.2501 is revised to read as follows: § 64.2501 Scope of limitation. For the purposes of this subpart, a multiunit premises is any contiguous area under common ownership or control that contains two or more distinct units. A commercial multiunit premises is any multiunit premises that is predominantly used for non-residential purposes, including for-profit, non-profit, and governmental uses. A residential multiunit premises is any multiunit premises that is predominantly used for residential purposes. [FR Doc. E8-10764 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 04-36; WT Docket No. 96-198; CG Docket No. 03-123 and CC Docket No. 92-105; DA 08-821] IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of The Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons With Disabilities; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; the Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; extension of waiver. SUMMARY: In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) grants interconnected voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)providers an extension of time to route 711-dialed calls to an appropriate telecommunications relay service
(TRS)center in the context of 711-dialed calls in which the calling party's telephone number may not reflect his or her geographic location. The Bureau also grants traditional TRS providers (those providing relay service via the public switched telephone network
(PSTN)and a text telephone (TTY)) an extension of time to fulfill their obligation to implement a system to automatically and immediately call an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP)when receiving an emergency 711-dialed call via an interconnected VoIP service. The Bureau takes this action based on information in the record reflecting the significant technical challenges presented by this requirement and on the Bureau's finding that the delivery of the inbound leg of a 711-dialed call by an interconnected VoIP provider to the appropriate relay center is a predicate to the delivery by the relay center of the outbound leg of such a call to an appropriate PSAP. DATES: Document DA 08-821 became effective on April 4, 2008. Interconnected VoIP providers are granted a waiver, until March 31, 2009, of the requirement to route 711-dialed calls to an appropriate relay center, but only in the context of 711-dialed calls in which the calling party is using a non-geographically relevant telephone number or a nomadic interconnected VoIP service. Traditional TRS Providers are granted an extension of time, until March 31, 2009, to implement a system to automatically and immediately call an appropriate PSAP when receiving an emergency 711-dialed call via an interconnected VoIP service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boehley, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-7395 (voice), or e-mail: *Lisa.Boehley@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Order, DA 08-821, adopted and released April 4, 2008. The full text of DA 08-821, and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter, will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. DA 08-821 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com* , or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice) or
(202)418-0432 (TTY). DA 08-821 also can be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format
(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders* . Synopsis On June 15, 2007, the Commission released IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of The Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; the Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123 and CC Docket No. 92-105, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275
(2007)( *2007 VoIP TRS Order* ), published at 72 FR 43546, August 6, 2007. In the *2007 VoIP TRS Order* , which became effective October 5, 2007, the Commission extended the TRS requirements contained in part 64 of the Commission's rules to providers of interconnected VoIP services. Among the requirements extended to interconnected VoIP providers was the obligation to offer 711 abbreviated dialing access to traditional TRS via a voice telephone or a text telephone (TTY). Following release of the *2007 VoIP TRS Order* , several parties filed petitions for waiver raising issues concerning
(1)the ability of interconnected VoIP providers to route the inbound leg of a 711-dialed call to an appropriate TRS provider, particularly when the caller's telephone number does not correspond to the caller's geographic location, and
(2)the ability of TRS providers that receive, via an interconnected VoIP service, a 711-dialed call concerning an emergency to determine an appropriate PSAP to call. In IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of The Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; the Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123 and CC Docket No. 92-105, Order and Public Notice Seeking Comment, 22 FCC Rcd 18319 (Cons. Govt. Aff. Bur. 2007) ( *October 2007 Order and Notice* ), published at 72 FR 61813 and 73 FR 61882, November 1, 2007, the Bureau clarified the 711-dialing requirement adopted in the *2007 VoIP TRS Order* and granted interconnected VoIP providers a six-month waiver of the requirement to route the inbound leg of a 711-dialed call to an “appropriate TRS provider.” The Bureau also granted traditional TRS providers a six-month waiver of their obligation to implement a system to automatically and immediately call an appropriate PSAP when receiving an emergency 711-dialed call via an interconnected VoIP service. In the *October 2007 Order and Notice* , the Bureau sought comment on “technical solutions” that would enable interconnected VoIP providers to route 711 calls to “an appropriate relay center,” as clarified in the *October 2007 Order and Notice* , and that would enable relay centers “to identify the appropriate PSAP to call” when receiving an emergency call via 711 and an interconnected VoIP service. In DA 08-821, the Bureau extends and modifies the current waivers, as they apply to interconnected VoIP providers and traditional TRS providers. First, the Bureau finds good cause to grant interconnected VoIP providers an extension of time, until March 31, 2009, to route 711-dialed calls to an appropriate relay center, but only in the context of 711-dialed calls in which the calling party's telephone number may not reflect his or her geographic location (because the caller is using a “non-geographically relevant” telephone number or a “nomadic” interconnected VoIP service). The record demonstrates that the technical difficulties associated with identifying the geographic location of a caller using a nomadic interconnected VoIP service or a non-geographically relevant telephone number when dialing a 711 call will not be resolved by the time the current waiver expires after April 5, 2008. Taking into account the progress providers have made to date, and in view of the extension petitions filed by Qwest Communications Corporation and Verizon, which detail the timetable for completion of developmental work that is, according to these providers, currently underway, the Bureau finds that providing interconnected VoIP providers this additional time to bring themselves into compliance is warranted. The Bureau also, however, does not think additional time beyond March 31, 2009 is necessary, and therefore denies the request of Verizon to the extent it seeks to extend the current waiver for two years. In declining to grant a longer extension, the Bureau also agrees with the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology that, in assessing the necessity of a waiver in this context, the Commission should proceed cautiously, insofar as granting an extension may postpone the ability of persons with speech and hearing disabilities to access emergency services via TRS. For this reason, the Bureau limits the duration of the waiver and, as discussed above, limits the scope of the waiver to the routing of 711-dialed calls to an appropriate relay center where the calling party's telephone number may not reflect his or her geographic location. The Bureau emphasizes the limited scope of this waiver and notes that, upon expiration of the prior waiver (after April 5, 2008), interconnected VoIP providers are required to route to the appropriate relay center (as defined in the *October 2007 Order and Notice* ) those 711-dialed calls using a service in which the calling party's telephone number does reflect his or her geographic location. Further, notwithstanding the limited relief provided in DA 08-821, interconnected VoIP providers are nevertheless required to continue to accept nomadic and non-geographically relevant 711-dialed calls and route them to a relay center, even if it is not necessarily to the “appropriate relay center.” In addition, during the pendency of this waiver period, interconnected VoIP providers must continue to take steps to remind persons with speech or hearing disabilities to call 911 directly in the case of an emergency rather than making a 711-dialed TRS call. Regarding the obligation of traditional TRS providers to handle emergency calls in accordance with the Commission's rules, the Bureau also finds good cause to extend, until March 31, 2009, the current waiver of 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4), as applied to TRS providers' handling and routing of emergency 711-dialed calls placed via TTY by interconnected VoIP customers. Section 64.604(a)(4) requires TRS providers to use a system for incoming emergency calls that “automatically and immediately” routes the outbound leg of a TRS call to an appropriate PSAP. The Bureau's reasons for extending the waiver for TRS providers are three-fold. First, the record reflects that the routing of the outbound leg of a VoIP-originated, 711-dialed call to an appropriate PSAP by a TRS provider continues to present significant technical and operational challenges. Second, to the extent that interconnected VoIP providers are unable to consistently deliver the inbound leg of a 711-dialed call to the appropriate relay center, particularly when the caller's phone number does not reflect the caller's geographic location, the Bureau agrees with commenters that the successful accomplishment of this task is a predicate to the delivery by the relay provider of the outbound leg of such a call to an appropriate PSAP. In particular, until interconnected VoIP providers are technically able to route a “nomadic” 711-dialed call to the “appropriate” TRS provider ( *i.e.* , the TRS provider serving the state where the calling party is located or corresponding to the caller's last registered address), the TRS provider that receives such a call in error may contact a PSAP that corresponds to the caller's telephone number, but not the caller's actual location. Third, as noted by commenters, addressing these challenges will require a joint effort and the collaboration of TRS providers, interconnected VoIP providers and their vendors, PSAPs, the emergency services community, and the disability community. Although the Bureau applauds the steps undertaken thus far by various stakeholders, the record reflects that further collaboration is needed. For these reasons, the Bureau grants TRS providers an extension of the current waiver of the emergency call handling requirement until March 31, 2009. During the period of this waiver, pursuant to § 64.604(a)(4), the Bureau continues to require a TRS provider that cannot automatically and immediately route to an appropriate PSAP the outbound leg of an emergency 711 call placed via TTY by an interconnected VoIP user to implement a manual system for doing so, to the extent feasible, that accomplishes the proper routing of emergency 711 calls as efficiently as possible. Further, during this period, TRS providers are instructed to continue to take steps to remind individuals with hearing or speech disabilities to dial 911 directly (as a text-to-text, TTY-to-TTY call) in an emergency, whether using a PSTN-based service or interconnected VoIP service, rather than making a TRS call via 711 in an emergency. The Bureau also expects TRS providers will continue to collaborate with industry stakeholders in order to address any remaining issues, such that a further extension of this waiver will be unnecessary. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, and § § 0.141, 0.361, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.141, 0.316 and 1.3, DA 08-821 is adopted. Interconnected VoIP providers are granted a waiver, until March 31, 2009, of the requirement to route 711-dialed calls to an appropriate relay center, but only in the context of 711-dialed calls in which the calling party is using a non-geographically relevant telephone number or a nomadic interconnected VoIP service. State TRS Providers are granted an extension of time, until March 31, 2009, to implement a system, as set forth in 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4), to automatically and immediately call an appropriate PSAP when receiving an emergency 711-dialed call via an interconnected VoIP service. The petitions filed by Qwest Communications Corporation and Verizon are granted to the extent described in DA 08-821. Federal Communications Commission. Pam Slipakoff, Chief of Staff, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-10755 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 95 Thursday, May 15, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary; Privacy Office 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2007-0018] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions: The Office of Intelligence and Analysis Enterprise Records System AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is concurrently establishing a new system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 [5 U.S.C. 552a], as amended, to cover records maintained by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. These records were previously covered by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Operations Center Database [DHS/IAIP-001], last published in full text on April 18, 2005 [70 FR 20156]. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to exempt this new system of records, entitled the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Enterprise Records System
(ERS)[DHS/IA-001], from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and
(I)and
(f)of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k). As explained in the proposed rule, the exemption is necessary to avoid interference with the intelligence, counterterrorism, and other homeland security responsibilities, and any related law enforcement functions of the Department of Homeland Security and its Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Public comment is invited. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOCKET NUMBER DHS-2007-0023 by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number DHS-2007-0018. • *Fax:* 1-866-466-5370. • *Mail:* Hugo Teufel III, DHS Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. • *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. • *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Building 410, Washington, DC 20528, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, please contact the Director, Information Sharing and Knowledge Management Division, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, at
(202)282-8248. For privacy issues, please contact: Hugo Teufel III (571-227-3813), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, E-mail: *PIA@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)is publishing a Privacy Act system of records notice describing records in the “Office of Intelligence and Analysis Enterprise Records System, DHS/IA-001” (ERS). These records were previously covered by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Operations Center
(HSOC)Database [DHS/IAIP-001], last published on April 18, 2005 [70 FR 20156]. The DHS/IAIP-001 SORN originally addressed the treatment of Privacy Act records under the administrative and organizational framework of the former DHS Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
(IAIP)Directorate. After successive organizational realignments of the Department by the Secretary and Congress, in 2005 and 2006 respectively, the IAIP Directorate was effectively eliminated and the functional responsibilities and organization of what was then IAIP's Office of Information Analysis, today the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), were elevated when I&A became a stand alone organization within the Department, headed by what is now the position of Under Secretary for I&A, with direct-report responsibilities to the Secretary. Thus, ERS replaces those aspects of the HSOC Database [DHS/IAIP-001] SORN insofar as they previously applied to I&A records, but does not rescind, revoke, or supersede any portion of the previously published HSOC Database SORN, itself, insofar as it continues to apply to other components of DHS who maintain records within and consistent with that system. ERS is a system of records established pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296), as amended, and subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to support both the mission of I&A in providing intelligence and analysis support directly to DHS leadership; to all DHS operational components, elements, and other offices and activities; and to the Under Secretary for I&A, as Chief Intelligence Officer of the Department, in his role of effectively integrating and managing DHS's Intelligence Programs. I&A is the DHS-wide analytic entity and unified intelligence office which directly supports the Under Secretary for I&A, other DHS elements responsible for carrying out the mission of the Department under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, and other federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector DHS partners with responsibilities for securing the homeland from natural and manmade threats. As a member of the National Intelligence Community, I&A is also obligated to conduct its mission in conformance with the requirements of Executive Order 12333, as amended, “United States Intelligence Activities,” dated December 4, 1981. Amongst other requirements, Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 requires that each agency head within the IC establish procedures to govern the collection, retention, and dissemination of information concerning U.S. Persons, in a manner which protects the privacy and Constitutional rights of those U.S. Persons. The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Individuals may request their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the **Federal Register** a description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals to more easily find such files within the agency. Pursuant to his statutory authorities under section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, section 222, 116 Stat. 2135, 2155, the DHS Chief Privacy Officer is the senior DHS official appointed by the Secretary to oversee implementation of the Privacy Act within the Department and to undertake other privacy-related activities. Accordingly, the DHS Chief Privacy Officer published the system of records notice which corresponds with this proposed rule. The Privacy Act also allows government agencies, as appropriate, to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. Where an agency seeks to claim an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed. DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act by publication of this proposed rule. Accordingly, DHS proposes to exempt this system, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act and to add that exemption to Appendix C to Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. I&A needs these exemptions in order to protect information relating to authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement activities from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who, by accessing or knowing this information, could interfere with those activities or otherwise place in jeopardy the national or homeland security. Specifically, the exemptions are necessary in order to prevent revealing information concerning intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative efforts. Revealing such information to the subject or other individual could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities that threaten national or homeland security; compromise classified or other sensitive information; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, and interfere with intelligence or law enforcement analytic or investigative processes; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, or potential witnesses. The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the national or homeland security of the United States, or the law enforcement purposes of any investigatory material contained within this system, the applicable exemptions may be waived. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Classified information, Privacy, Courts; Freedom of information; Government employees. For the reasons stated in the preamble and pursuant to the authority vested in the Department of Homeland Security by 5 U.S.C. 552a, and assigned to me under Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 *et seq.* ; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, add the following new section 8: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 8. DHS/IA-001, Enterprise Records System.
(a)Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2), (3), and (5), this system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption. Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement purposes of this system, the applicable exemption may be waived by DHS.
(b)Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1)From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any interest in the individual of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative nature. Revealing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities of:
(i)Known or suspected terrorists and terrorist groups;
(ii)Groups or individuals known or believed to be assisting or associated with known or suspected terrorists or terrorist groups;
(iii)Individuals known, believed to be, or suspected of being engaged in activities constituting a threat to homeland security, including
(1)Activities which impact or concern the security, safety, and integrity of our international borders, including any illegal activities that either cross our borders or are otherwise in violation of the immigration or customs laws and regulations of the United States;
(2)activities which could reasonably be expected to assist in the development or use of a weapon of mass effect;
(3)activities meant to identify, create, or exploit the vulnerabilities of, or undermine, the “key resources” (as defined in section 2(9) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and “critical infrastructure” (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 5195c(c)) of the United States, including the cyber and national telecommunications infrastructure and the availability of a viable national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure;
(4)activities detrimental to the security of transportation and transportation systems;
(5)activities which violate or are suspected of violating the laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States and other financial crimes, including access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure;
(6)activities, not wholly conducted within the United States, which violate or are suspected of violating the laws which prohibit the production, transfer, or sale of narcotics or substances controlled in accordance with Title 21 of the United States Code, or those associated activities otherwise prohibited by Titles 21 and 46 of the United States Code;
(7)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the safety and security of the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; the White House, Vice President's residence, foreign missions, and other designated buildings within the United States;
(8)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten domestic maritime safety and security, maritime mobility and navigation, or the integrity of the domestic maritime environment;
(9)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the national operational capability of the Department to respond to natural and manmade major disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism;
(10)activities involving the importation, possession, storage, development, or transportation of nuclear or radiological material without authorization or for use against the United States;
(iv)Foreign governments, organizations, or persons (foreign powers); and
(v)Individuals engaging in intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power or terrorist group. Thus, by notifying the record subject that he/she is the focus of such efforts or interest on the part of DHS, or other agencies with whom DHS is cooperating and to whom the disclosures were made, this information could permit the record subject to take measures to impede or evade such efforts, including the taking of steps to deceive DHS personnel and deny them the ability to adequately assess relevant information and activities, and could inappropriately disclose to the record subject the sensitive methods and/or confidential sources used to acquire the relevant information against him/her. Moreover, where the record subject is the actual target of a law enforcement investigation, this information could permit him/her to take measures to impede the investigation, for example, by destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses, or avoiding detection or apprehension.
(2)From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and
(4)(Access to Records) because these provisions concern individual rights of access to and amendment of records (including the review of agency denials of either) contained in this system, which consists of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related investigatory records concerning efforts of the Department, as described more fully in subsection (b)(1), above. Compliance with these provisions could inform or alert the subject of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating, of the fact and nature of such efforts, and/or the relevant intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory interest of DHS and/or other intelligence, counterterrorism, or law enforcement agencies. Moreover, compliance could also compromise sensitive information either classified in the interest of national security, or which otherwise requires, as appropriate, safeguarding and protection from unauthorized disclosure; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, including interfering with intelligence or law enforcement investigative processes by permitting the destruction of evidence, improper influencing or intimidation of witnesses, fabrication of statements or testimony, and flight from detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, and potential witnesses. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement investigations and activities, including incident reporting and analysis activities, and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, reports, and analyses to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(3)From subsection (e)(1) (Relevant and Necessary) because it is not always possible for DHS to know in advance of its receipt the relevance and necessity of each piece of information it acquires in the course of an intelligence, counterterrorism, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating. In the context of the authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, and investigatory activities undertaken by DHS personnel, relevance and necessity are questions of analytic judgment and timing, such that what may appear relevant and necessary when acquired ultimately may be deemed unnecessary upon further analysis and evaluation. Similarly, in some situations, it is only after acquired information is collated, analyzed, and evaluated in light of other available evidence and information that its relevance and necessity can be established or made clear. Constraining the initial acquisition of information included within the ERS in accordance with the relevant and necessary requirement of subsection (e)(1) could discourage the appropriate receipt of and access to information which DHS and I&A are otherwise authorized to receive and possess under law, and thereby impede efforts to detect, deter, prevent, disrupt, or apprehend terrorists or terrorist groups, and/or respond to terrorist or other activities which threaten homeland security. Notwithstanding this claimed exemption, which would permit the acquisition and temporary maintenance of records whose relevance to the purpose of the ERS may be less than fully clear, DHS will only disclose such records after determining whether such disclosures are themselves consistent with the published ERS routine uses. Moreover, it should be noted that, as concerns the receipt by I&A, for intelligence purposes, of information in any record which identifies a U.S. Person, as defined in Executive Order 12333, as amended, such receipt, and any subsequent use or dissemination of that identifying information, is undertaken consistent with the procedures established and adhered to by I&A pursuant to that Executive Order. Specifically, I&A intelligence personnel may acquire information which identifies a particular U.S. Person, retain it within or disseminate it from ERS, as appropriate, only when it is determined that the personally identifying information is necessary for the conduct of I&A's functions, and otherwise falls into one of a limited number of authorized categories, each of which reflects discrete activities for which information on individuals would be utilized by the Department in the overall execution of its statutory mission.
(4)From subsections (e)(4) (G),
(H)and
(I)(Access), and
(f)(Agency Rules), inasmuch as it is unnecessary for the publication of rules and procedures contemplated therein since the ERS, pursuant to subsections
(1)and (2), above, will be exempt from the underlying duties to provide to individuals notification about, access to, and the ability to amend or correct the information pertaining to them in, this system of records. Furthermore, to the extent that subsection (e)(4)(I) is construed to require more detailed disclosure than the information accompanying the system notice for ERS, as published in today's **Federal Register** , exemption from it is also necessary to protect the confidentiality, privacy, and physical safety of sources of information, as well as the methods for acquiring it. Finally, greater specificity concerning the description of categories of sources of properly classified records could also compromise or otherwise cause damage to the national or homeland security. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-10891 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2008-0003] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Law Enforcement Information Database (LEIDB)/Pathfinder AGENCY: Privacy Office, Office of the Secretary, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the United States Coast Guard's Law Enforcement Information Data Base (LEIDB)/Pathfinder system. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, intelligence and administrative enforcement requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOCKET NUMBER DHS-2008-0003 by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Facsimile:* 1-866-466-5370. • *Mail:* Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Homeland Security United States Coast Guard (LEIDB/Pathfinder System Manager), Intelligence Division (CG-262), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; telephone 703-235-0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)is publishing a Privacy Act system of records notice DHS/USCG-061 LEIDB/Pathfinder. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security is establishing Law Enforcement Information Data Base (LEIDB)/Pathfinder as a system to meet urgent homeland security and law enforcement mission needs. The Assistant Commandant for Intelligence and Criminal Investigations (CG-2) identified a need to archive messages for more than thirty
(30)days and to be able to perform analysis of the data contained within the messages to support law enforcement
(LE)and intelligence activities. Pathfinder was selected and implemented to support the requirement. LEIDB is currently in limited operation. LEIDB is receiving message traffic, however limitations on use of the data are in place. Coast Guard policy restricts LEIDB queries to searches that do not utilize U.S. Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident Alien PII. Once the SORN is approved and published, new instructions will be published allowing PII searches. LEIDB/Pathfinder is installed on the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET). LEIDB/Pathfinder contains both unclassified and National Security Classified information. Message traffic originating from federal agencies and managed on the Coast Guard Message System
(CGMS)or the Defense Message Systems
(DMS)are moved to the LEIDB/Pathfinder automatically and via personnel intervention with e-mail. Users of the system access LEIDB/Pathfinder data via a web browser interface. The interface allows users to search for data using Boolean searches that are run against the unstructured text in a message. Messages contained in LEIDB/Pathfinder are not machine processed in any fashion to enable data manipulation; they are not normalized or correlated. The Law Enforcement Information Database (LEIDB)/Pathfinder is a historical repository of selected Coast Guard message traffic. LEIDB/Pathfinder supports law enforcement intelligence activities. LEIDB/Pathfinder users can query archived message traffic and link relevant information across multiple data records within LEIDB/Pathfinder. Users have system tools enabling the user to identify potential relationships between information contained in otherwise unrelated documents. These tools allow the analysts to build high precision and low return queries, which minimize false hits and maximize analyst productivity while working with unstructured, unformatted, free test documents. The Privacy Act also allows government agencies, as appropriate, to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. Where an agency seeks to claim an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed. DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act by publication of this proposed rule. Accordingly, DHS proposes to exempt this system, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act and to add that exemption to Appendix C to Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. Coast Guard needs these exemptions in order to protect information relating to authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement activities from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who, by accessing or knowing this information, could interfere with those activities or otherwise place in jeopardy the national or homeland security. Specifically, the exemptions are necessary in order to prevent revealing information concerning intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative efforts. Revealing such information to the subject or other individual could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities that threaten national or homeland security; compromise classified or other sensitive information; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, and interfere with intelligence or law enforcement analytic or investigative processes; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, or potential witnesses. The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Nonetheless, DHS will examine each separate request on a case-by-case basis, and, after conferring with the appropriate component or agency, may waive applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement or national security purposes of the systems from which the information is recompiled or in which it is contained. Regulatory Requirements A. Regulatory Impact Analyses Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. In conducting these analyses, DHS has determined: 1. Executive Order 12866 Assessment This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (as amended). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless, DHS has reviewed this rulemaking, and concluded that there will not be any significant economic impact. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would impose no duties or obligations on small entities. Further, the exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to individuals, and individuals are not covered entities under the RFA. 3. International Trade Impact Assessment This rulemaking will not constitute a barrier to international trade. The exemptions relate to criminal investigations and agency documentation and, therefore, do not create any new costs or barriers to trade. 4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) requires that DHS consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DHS has determined that there are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this rule. C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism This action will not have a substantial direct effect 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, and therefore will not have federalism implications. D. Environmental Analysis DHS has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. E. Energy Impact The energy impact of this action has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA)Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). This rulemaking is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Freedom of information, Privacy, Sensitive information. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 *et seq.* ; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. At the end of Appendix C to part 5, add the following new section 7: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 6. DHS/USCG-061, LEIDB/Pathfinder.
(a)Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) certain records or information in the above mentioned system of records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G) through (I), (e)(5), and (8); (f), and (g). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption. Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement purposes of this system, the applicable exemption may be waived by DHS.
(b)Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1)From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any interest in the individual of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative nature. Revealing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities of:
(i)Known or suspected terrorists and terrorist groups;
(ii)Groups or individuals known or believed to be assisting or associated with known or suspected terrorists or terrorist groups;
(iii)Individuals known, believed to be, or suspected of being engaged in activities constituting a threat to homeland security, including
(1)activities which impact or concern the security, safety, and integrity of our international borders, including any illegal activities that either cross our borders or are otherwise in violation of the immigration or customs laws and regulations of the United States;
(2)activities which could reasonably be expected to assist in the development or use of a weapon of mass effect;
(3)activities meant to identify, create, or exploit the vulnerabilities of, or undermine, the “key resources” (as defined in section 2(9) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and “critical infrastructure” (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 5195c(c)) of the United States, including the cyber and national telecommunications infrastructure and the availability of a viable national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure;
(4)activities detrimental to the security of transportation and transportation systems;
(5)activities which violate or are suspected of violating the laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States and other financial crimes, including access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure;
(6)activities, not wholly conducted within the United States, which violate or are suspected of violating the laws which prohibit the production, transfer, or sale of narcotics or substances controlled in accordance with Title 21 of the United States Code, or those associated activities otherwise prohibited by Titles 21 and 46 of the United States Code;
(7)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the safety and security of the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; the White House, Vice President's residence, foreign missions, and other designated buildings within the United States;
(8)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten domestic maritime safety and security, maritime mobility and navigation, or the integrity of the domestic maritime environment;
(9)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the national operational capability of the Department to respond to natural and manmade major disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism;
(10)activities involving the importation, possession, storage, development, or transportation of nuclear or radiological material without authorization or for use against the United States;
(iv)Foreign governments, organizations, or persons (foreign powers); and
(v)Individuals engaging in intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power or terrorist group. Thus, by notifying the record subject that he/she is the focus of such efforts or interest on the part of DHS, or other agencies with whom DHS is cooperating and to whom the disclosures were made, this information could permit the record subject to take measures to impede or evade such efforts, including the taking of steps to deceive DHS personnel and deny them the ability to adequately assess relevant information and activities, and could inappropriately disclose to the record subject the sensitive methods and/or confidential sources used to acquire the relevant information against him/her. Moreover, where the record subject is the actual target of a law enforcement investigation, this information could permit him/her to take measures to impede the investigation, for example, by destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses, or avoiding detection or apprehension.
(2)From subsection (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosure, notice of dispute) because certain records in this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), this requirement to inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute that the agency made with regard to those records, should not apply.
(3)From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and
(4)(Access to Records) because these provisions concern individual rights of access to and amendment of records (including the review of agency denials of either) contained in this system, which consists of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related investigatory records concerning efforts of the Department, as described more fully in subsection (b)(1), above. Compliance with these provisions could inform or alert the subject of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating, of the fact and nature of such efforts, and/or the relevant intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory interest of DHS and/or other intelligence, counterterrorism, or law enforcement agencies. Moreover, compliance could also compromise sensitive information either classified in the interest of national security, or which otherwise requires, as appropriate, safeguarding and protection from unauthorized disclosure; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, including interfering with intelligence or law enforcement investigative processes by permitting the destruction of evidence, improper influencing or intimidation of witnesses, fabrication of statements or testimony, and flight from detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, and potential witnesses. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement investigations and activities, including incident reporting and analysis activities, and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, reports, and analyses to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(4)From subsection (e)(1) (Relevant and Necessary) because it is not always possible for DHS to know in advance of its receipt the relevance and necessity of each piece of information it acquires in the course of an intelligence, counterterrorism, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating. In the context of the authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, and investigatory activities undertaken by DHS personnel, relevance and necessity are questions of analytic judgment and timing, such that what may appear relevant and necessary when acquired ultimately may be deemed unnecessary upon further analysis and evaluation. Similarly, in some situations, it is only after acquired information is collated, analyzed, and evaluated in light of other available evidence and information that its relevance and necessity can be established or made clear. Constraining the initial acquisition of information included within the LEIDB in accordance with the relevant and necessary requirement of subsection (e)(1) could discourage the appropriate receipt of and access to information which DHS and USCG are otherwise authorized to receive and possess under law, and thereby impede efforts to detect, deter, prevent, disrupt, or apprehend terrorists or terrorist groups, and/or respond to terrorist or other activities which threaten homeland security. Notwithstanding this claimed exemption, which would permit the acquisition and temporary maintenance of records whose relevance to the purpose of the LEIDB may be less than fully clear, DHS will only disclose such records after determining whether such disclosures are themselves consistent with the published LEIDB routine uses. Moreover, it should be noted that, as concerns the receipt by USCG, for intelligence purposes, of information in any record which identifies a U.S. Person, as defined in Executive Order 12333, as amended, such receipt, and any subsequent use or dissemination of that identifying information, is undertaken consistent with the procedures established and adhered to by USCG pursuant to that Executive Order. Specifically, USCG intelligence personnel may acquire information which identifies a particular U.S. Person, retain it within or disseminate it from LEIDB, as appropriate, only when it is determined that the personally identifying information is necessary for the conduct of USCG's functions, and otherwise falls into one of a limited number of authorized categories, each of which reflects discrete activities for which information on individuals would be utilized by the Department in the overall execution of its statutory mission.
(5)From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because application of this provision could present a serious impediment to counterterrorism or law enforcement efforts in that it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct designed to frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of counterterrorism, and law enforcement investigations is such that vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are familiar with such individual and his/her activities. In such investigations it is not feasible to rely solely upon information furnished by the individual concerning his own activities.
(6)From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects), to the extent that this subsection is interpreted to require DHS to provide notice to an individual if DHS or another agency receives or collects information about that individual during an investigation or from a third party. Should the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to avoid impeding counterterrorism or law enforcement efforts by putting the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that activity.
(7)From subsections (e)(4)(G),
(H)and
(I)(Access), inasmuch as it is unnecessary for the publication of rules and procedures contemplated therein since the LEIDB, pursuant to subsections
(2)and (3), above, will be exempt from the underlying duties to provide to individuals notification about, access to, and the ability to amend or correct the information pertaining to them in, this system of records. Furthermore, to the extent that subsection (e)(4)(I) is construed to require more detailed disclosure than the information accompanying the system notice for LEIDB, as published in today's **Federal Register** , exemption from it is also necessary to protect the confidentiality, privacy, and physical safety of sources of information, as well as the methods for acquiring it. Finally, greater specificity concerning the description of categories of sources of properly classified records could also compromise or otherwise cause damage to the national or homeland security.
(8)From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because many of the records in this system coming from other system of records are derived from other domestic and foreign agency record systems and therefore it is not possible for DHS to vouch for their compliance with this provision; however, the DHS has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that data used in its screening processes is as complete, accurate, and current as possible. In addition, in the collection of information for law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies' trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in conducting investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts.
(9)From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on DHS and other agencies and could alert the subjects of counterterrorism or law enforcement investigations to the fact of those investigations then not previously known.
(10)From subsection
(f)(Agency Rules) because portions of this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d). Access to, and amendment of, system records that are not exempt or for which exemption is waived may be obtained under procedures described in the related SORN or Subpart B of this Part.
(11)From subsection
(g)to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act relating to individuals' rights to access and amend their records contained in the system. Therefore DHS is not required to establish rules or procedures pursuant to which individuals may seek a civil remedy for the agency's refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply with a request for access to records; failure to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records; or failure to otherwise comply with an individual's right to access or amend records. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10893 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2007-0073] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNET) AGENCY: Privacy Office, Office of the Secretary, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a revised and updated system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the United States Coast Guard's Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNET) system. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, intelligence and administrative enforcement requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOCKET NUMBER DHS-2007-0073 by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Facsimile:* 1-866-466-5370. • *Mail:* Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Homeland Security United States Coast Guard (MAGNET Executive Agent), Intelligence Division (CG-26), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; telephone 703-235-0780. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)is publishing a Privacy Act system of records notice DHS/USCG-061 Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNET). These records were previously covered by a legacy system of records, Department of Transportation DOT/CG 642 System of Records Notice known as Joint Maritime Information Element, JMIE, Support System, JSS (67 FR 19475). When fully operational, MAGNET will replace and enhance JMIE/JSS by adding additional data sources, media storage, access capabilities, and infrastructure. MAGNET will provide rapid, near real-time data to the Coast Guard and other authorized organizations both within and outside DHS with a need to know the information. The information in MAGNET establishes Maritime Domain Awareness. Maritime Domain Awareness is the collection of as much information as possible about the maritime world. In other words, MAGNET establishes a full awareness of the entities (people, places, things) and their activities within the maritime industry. MAGNET collects the information and connects the information in order to fulfill this need. Coast Guard Intelligence (through MAGNET) will provide awareness to the field as well as to strategic planners by aggregating data from existing sources internal and external to the Coast Guard or DHS. MAGNET will correlate and provide the medium to display information such as ship registry, current ship position, crew background, passenger lists, port history, cargo, known criminal vessels, and suspect lists. Coast Guard Intelligence (CG-2) will serve as MAGNET's executive agent and will share appropriate aggregated data to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Privacy Act also allows government agencies, as appropriate, to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. Where an agency seeks to claim an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed. DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act by publication of this proposed rule. Accordingly, DHS proposes to exempt this system, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act and to add that exemption to Appendix C to Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. Coast Guard needs these exemptions in order to protect information relating to authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement activities from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who, by accessing or knowing this information, could interfere with those activities or otherwise place in jeopardy the national or homeland security. Specifically, the exemptions are necessary in order to prevent revealing information concerning intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative efforts. Revealing such information to the subject or other individuals could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities that threaten national or homeland security; compromise classified or other sensitive information; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, and interfere with intelligence or law enforcement analytic or investigative processes; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, or potential witnesses. The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Nonetheless, DHS will examine each separate request on a case-by-case basis, and, after conferring with the appropriate component or agency, may waive applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement or national security purposes of the systems from which the information is recompiled or in which it is contained. Regulatory Requirements A. Regulatory Impact Analyses Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. In conducting these analyses, DHS has determined: 1. Executive Order 12866 Assessment This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (as amended). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless, DHS has reviewed this rulemaking, and concluded that there will not be any significant economic impact. 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would impose no duties or obligations on small entities. Further, the exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to individuals, and individuals are not covered entities under the RFA. 3. International Trade Impact Assessment This rulemaking will not constitute a barrier to international trade. The exemptions relate to criminal investigations and agency documentation and, therefore, do not create any new costs or barriers to trade. 4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) requires that DHS consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DHS has determined that there are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this rule. C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism This action will not have a substantial direct effect 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, and therefore will not have federalism implications. D. Environmental Analysis DHS has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. E. Energy Impact The energy impact of this action has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA)Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). This rulemaking is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Freedom of information, Privacy, Sensitive information. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 *et seq.* ; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, add the following new section 6: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 6. DHS/USCG-061, Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNET).
(a)Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2) this system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and (4), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), e(5), e(8), e(12), (f), and (g). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption. Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related law enforcement purposes of this system, the applicable exemption may be waived by DHS.
(b)Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1)From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting of Certain Disclosures) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any interest in the individual of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or related investigative nature. Revealing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts of the Department to identify, understand, analyze, investigate, and counter the activities of:
(i)known or suspected terrorists and terrorist groups;
(ii)groups or individuals known or believed to be assisting or associated with known or suspected terrorists or terrorist groups;
(iii)individuals known, believed to be, or suspected of being engaged in activities constituting a threat to homeland security, including
(1)activities which impact or concern the security, safety, and integrity of our international borders, including any illegal activities that either cross our borders or are otherwise in violation of the immigration or customs laws and regulations of the United States;
(2)activities which could reasonably be expected to assist in the development or use of a weapon of mass effect;
(3)activities meant to identify, create, or exploit the vulnerabilities of, or undermine, the “key resources” (as defined in section 2(9) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002) and “critical infrastructure” (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 5195c(c)) of the United States, including the cyber and national telecommunications infrastructure and the availability of a viable national security and emergency preparedness communications infrastructure;
(4)activities detrimental to the security of transportation and transportation systems;
(5)activities which violate or are suspected of violating the laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States and other financial crimes, including access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure;
(6)activities, not wholly conducted within the United States, which violate or are suspected of violating the laws which prohibit the production, transfer, or sale of narcotics or substances controlled in accordance with Title 21 of the United States Code, or those associated activities otherwise prohibited by Titles 21 and 46 of the United States Code;
(7)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the safety and security of the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; the White House, Vice President's residence, foreign missions, and other designated buildings within the United States;
(8)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten domestic maritime safety and security, maritime mobility and navigation, or the integrity of the domestic maritime environment;
(9)activities which impact, concern, or otherwise threaten the national operational capability of the Department to respond to natural and manmade major disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism;
(10)activities involving the importation, possession, storage, development, or transportation of nuclear or radiological material without authorization or for use against the United States;
(iv)foreign governments, organizations, or persons (foreign powers); and
(v)individuals engaging in intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power or terrorist group. Thus, by notifying the record subject that he/she is the focus of such efforts or interest on the part of DHS, or other agencies with whom DHS is cooperating and to whom the disclosures were made, this information could permit the record subject to take measures to impede or evade such efforts, including the taking of steps to deceive DHS personnel and deny them the ability to adequately assess relevant information and activities, and could inappropriately disclose to the record subject the sensitive methods and/or confidential sources used to acquire the relevant information against him/her. Moreover, where the record subject is the actual target of a law enforcement investigation, this information could permit him/her to take measures to impede the investigation, for example, by destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses, or avoiding detection or apprehension.
(2)From subsection (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosure, notice of dispute) because certain records in this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), this requirement to inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute that the agency made with regard to those records, should not apply.
(3)From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and
(4)(Access to Records) because these provisions concern individual rights of access to and amendment of records (including the review of agency denials of either) contained in this system, which consists of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and related investigatory records concerning efforts of the Department, as described more fully in subsection (b)(1), above. Compliance with these provisions could inform or alert the subject of an intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating, of the fact and nature of such efforts, and/or the relevant intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, or investigatory interest of DHS and/or other intelligence, counterterrorism, or law enforcement agencies. Moreover, compliance could also compromise sensitive information either classified in the interest of national security, or which otherwise requires, as appropriate, safeguarding and protection from unauthorized disclosure; identify a confidential source or disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another individual's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive intelligence or investigative technique or method, including interfering with intelligence or law enforcement investigative processes by permitting the destruction of evidence, improper influencing or intimidation of witnesses, fabrication of statements or testimony, and flight from detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement personnel, confidential sources and informants, and potential witnesses. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing intelligence, counterterrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement investigations and activities, including incident reporting and analysis activities, and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, reports, and analyses to be continuously reinvestigated and revised.
(4)From subsection (e)(1) (Relevant and Necessary) because it is not always possible for DHS to know in advance of its receipt the relevance and necessity of each piece of information it acquires in the course of an intelligence, counterterrorism, or investigatory effort undertaken on behalf of the Department, or by another agency with whom DHS is cooperating. In the context of the authorized intelligence, counterterrorism, and investigatory activities undertaken by DHS personnel, relevance and necessity are questions of analytic judgment and timing, such that what may appear relevant and necessary when acquired ultimately may be deemed unnecessary upon further analysis and evaluation. Similarly, in some situations, it is only after acquired information is collated, analyzed, and evaluated in light of other available evidence and information that its relevance and necessity can be established or made clear. Constraining the initial acquisition of information included within the MAGNET in accordance with the relevant and necessary requirement of subsection (e)(1) could discourage the appropriate receipt of and access to information which DHS and MAGNET are otherwise authorized to receive and possess under law, and thereby impede efforts to detect, deter, prevent, disrupt, or apprehend terrorists or terrorist groups, and/or respond to terrorist or other activities which threaten homeland security. Notwithstanding this claimed exemption, which would permit the acquisition and temporary maintenance of records whose relevance to the purpose of the MAGNET may be less than fully clear, DHS will only disclose such records after determining whether such disclosures are themselves consistent with the published MAGNET routine uses. Moreover, it should be noted that, as concerns the receipt by USCG, for intelligence purposes, of information in any record which identifies a U.S. Person, as defined in Executive Order 12333, as amended, such receipt, and any subsequent use or dissemination of that identifying information, is undertaken consistent with the procedures established and adhered to by USCG pursuant to that Executive Order. Specifically, USCG intelligence personnel may acquire information which identifies a particular U.S. Person, retain it within or disseminate it from MAGNET, as appropriate, only when it is determined that the personally identifying information is necessary for the conduct of USCG's functions, and otherwise falls into one of a limited number of authorized categories, each of which reflects discrete activities for which information on individuals would be utilized by the Department in the overall execution of its statutory mission.
(5)From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because application of this provision could present a serious impediment to counterterrorism or law enforcement efforts in that it would put the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct designed to frustrate or impede that activity. The nature of counterterrorism, and law enforcement investigations is such that vital information about an individual frequently can be obtained only from other persons who are familiar with such individual and his/her activities. In such investigations it is not feasible to rely solely upon information furnished by the individual concerning his own activities.
(6)From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects), to the extent that this subsection is interpreted to require DHS to provide notice to an individual if DHS or another agency receives or collects information about that individual during an investigation or from a third party. Should the subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to avoid impeding counterterrorism or law enforcement efforts by putting the subject of an investigation, study or analysis on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that activity.
(7)From subsections
(4)(G),
(H)and
(I)(Access), and
(f)(Agency Rules), inasmuch as it is unnecessary for the publication of rules and procedures contemplated therein since the MAGNET, pursuant to subsections (3), above, will be exempt from the underlying duties to provide to individuals notification about, access to, and the ability to amend or correct the information pertaining to them in, this system of records. Furthermore, to the extent that subsection (e)(4)(I) is construed to require more detailed disclosure than the information accompanying the system notice for MAGNET, as published in today's **Federal Register** , exemption from it is also necessary to protect the confidentiality, privacy, and physical safety of sources of information, as well as the methods for acquiring it. Finally, greater specificity concerning the description of categories of sources of properly classified records could also compromise or otherwise cause damage to the national or homeland security.
(8)From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because many of the records in this system coming from other system of records are derived from other domestic and foreign agency record systems and therefore it is not possible for DHS to vouch for their compliance with this provision; however, the DHS has implemented internal quality assurance procedures to ensure that data used in its screening processes is as complete, accurate, and as current as possible. In addition, in the collection of information for law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the ability of those agencies' trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in conducting investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts.
(9)From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on DHS and other agencies and could alert the subjects of counterterrorism or law enforcement investigations to the fact of those investigations then not previously known.
(10)From subsection (e)(12) (Matching Agreements) because requiring DHS to provide notice of alterations to existing matching agreements would impair DHS operations by indicating which data elements and information are valuable to DHS's analytical functions, thereby providing harmful disclosure of information to individuals who would seek to circumvent or interfere with DHS's missions.
(11)From subsection
(g)(Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10897 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0302] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC. This proposal would allow that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0302 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: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6629. 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. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0302), 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-2008-0302) 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 at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 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 Currently, no public meeting is scheduled. 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 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 The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for the operation of the S117-S133 Bridge, at mile 1.5, across Smith Creek at Wilmington, NC. The existing operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.841 which requires the draw to open on signal if at least 24 hour notice is given. In the closed-to-navigation position, the S117-S133 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 12 feet, above mean high water. From the 1930s to the 1970s, Smith Creek was the main waterway route for commercial vessel traffic servicing lumber mills and factories along the waterfront in Wilmington NC. There are no longer any commercial interests requiring access upstream. NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation, and it has been more than 35 years since the bridge was actually manned by operators. Due to the lack of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the past 20 years, NCDOT requested to change the current operating regulations so that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.841 which governs the S117-S133 Bridge by revising the paragraph to read that the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. 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. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation and a six-month notification prerequisite for mariners would be required for vessel access. 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 not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because NCDOT has not received a request to open the bridge in over 20 years for waterway navigation. 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 Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,
(757)398-6222. 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 will 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 affect 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 because it simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. 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 117 Bridges. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise § 117.841 to read as follows: § 117.841 Smith Creek The draw of the S117-S133 Bridge, mile 1.5 at Wilmington, need not open for the passage of vessels. Dated: May 5, 2008. Fred M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10801 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0867; FRL-8566-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)on October 9, 2006. The SIP revision EPA is proposing to approve would require decreased newspaper notice for proposed air quality Standard Permits with statewide applicability to the following metropolitan areas: Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other regional newspapers the TCEQ Executive Director designates on a case-by-case basis. TCEQ will publish notice of a proposed air quality Standard Permit in the *Texas Register* and will issue a press release. In addition, TCEQ may also use electronic means to inform state and local officials of a proposed air quality Standard Permit. EPA proposes to approve these revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (Act). DATES: Comments must be received on or before *June 16, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0867, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: *http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.* Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at *spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at fax number 214-665-7263. • *Mail:* Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • *Hand or Courier Delivery:* Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0867. 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 docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-7212; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Outline I. What Action is EPA Taking? II. What is the Background for this Action? III. What is EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Regulations that Texas Submitted? IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing approval on a revision to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 116 (Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification), Subchapter F (Standard Permits), section 116.603 (Public Participation in Issuance of Standard Permits). TCEQ submitted the proposed SIP revision to EPA on October 9, 2006 for approval. The proposed SIP revision requires that any proposed air quality Standard Permit with statewide applicability be published in the daily newspaper of largest general circulation within each of the following metropolitan areas: Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other regional newspaper designated by the Executive Director on a case-by-case basis. The proposed revision also requires TCEQ to publish notice of a proposed Standard Permit in the *Texas Register* and issue a press release. However, the proposed revision changes the current EPA SIP-approved rule as it no longer requires TCEQ to issue newspaper notices for proposed Standard Permits with statewide applicability in the following metropolitan areas: Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, or Tyler. EPA proposes to approve the revision as meeting the federal requirements in 40 CFR 51.161, Public Availability of Information that requires “* * * [n]otice by prominent advertisement in the area affected * * *.” II. What Is the Background for This Action? On November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64543), EPA approved provisions under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Standard Permits. These provisions include the procedures the TCEQ follows when it issues or revises a Standard Permit. A Standard Permit is adopted under Chapter 116, Subchapter F, and provides a streamlined mechanism for approving the construction of certain sources within categories that contain numerous similar sources. The November 14, 2003, action describes our basis for approving the provisions for Standard Permits and describes how these rules meet EPA's requirements for new and modified sources. The SIP-approved provisions for Standard Permits include section 116.603 (Public Participation in Issuance of Standard Permits). This SIP-approved section requires that the TCEQ publish notice of a proposed air quality Standard Permit in a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the activity that is the subject of the proposed Standard Permit. If the proposed Standard Permit will have statewide applicability, the SIP-approved rule requires TCEQ to publish notice in the daily newspaper of the largest general circulation within each of the following metropolitan areas: Amarillo, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, San Antonio, and Tyler. The SIP-approved rule also requires that TCEQ publish notice in the *Texas Register* , an official State publication that is available throughout the State of Texas. On October 9, 2006, TCEQ submitted revisions to section 116.603. The State's revised rule requires newspaper notice for proposed Standard Permits with statewide applicability in only three of the eleven original metropolitan areas: Austin, Dallas, Houston, and any other regional newspaper designated by the Executive Director on a case-by-case basis. The State's rule no longer requires newspaper notice for each proposed Standard Permit to be published in Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, San Antonio, or Tyler. However, TCEQ will continue to publish public notice in the *Texas Register* and issue a press release. III. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Regulations That Texas Submitted? EPA is aware that states' minor new source review programs vary widely from state to state. EPA has also approved various minor new source public notice and participation rules based on the environmental significance of the permit action. 68 FR 2894, 2895 (Jan. 22, 2003). Publication through newspaper notice for proposed Standard Permits with statewide applicability will be published in fewer metropolitan areas. However, notice will continue to be published in the *Texas Register* , an official, weekly publication that serves as the journal of state agency rulemaking. The *Texas Register* can be accessed through the Texas Secretary of State's website as well as other means. 1 EPA believes this is sufficient to ensure public notice of Standard Permits with statewide applicability. 1 Any person can access the *Texas Register* at *http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/index.shtml.* Under this website, any person can access the current issue of the *Texas Register* and the back issues of the *Texas Register* beginning with the year 1991. The revised rule provides that for a proposed Standard Permit with statewide applicability, to publish public notice in the daily newspaper of largest general circulation within the metropolitan areas of Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and any other regional newspapers designated by the executive director on a case-by-case basis. The Commission will also publish notice in the *Texas Register* and issue a press release. The TCEQ may use electronic means to transmit notice to selected state and local officials. Although EPA has considered whether TCEQ should develop replicable procedures for determining when to publish notice in other regional newspapers on a case-by-case basis, EPA believes that the baseline rule is sufficient provide adequate public notice to the entire State of Texas. The baseline notice includes: • Publication in the daily newspaper of largest general circulation within the metropolitan areas of Austin, Dallas, and Houston; • Publication of notice in the *Texas Register* ; • Issuance of a press release, and • TCEQ may use electronic means to transmit notice to selected state and local officials. EPA believes that these requirements are sufficient to ensure adequate notice to the State of Texas. Accordingly, the publication of notice in other regional newspapers on a case-by-case basis will be in addition to the above described baseline requirements. The public may also access Texas' proposed Standard Permits on the TCEQ's Web site. The TCEQ posts its proposed Standard Permits on its Web site at *http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/air/nav/standard.html.* This Web site includes the public notice of proposed Standard Permits during the comment period, the information on TCEQ's final action on Standard Permits (including TCEQ's response to the comments received from the public, and the text of all existing Standard Permits. A more detailed discussion of Texas' public notice procedures for proposed Standard Permits is in the Technical Support Document which is in the docket for this proposed action. For the reasons discussed above and in the Technical Support Document, EPA believes that this revision to section 116.603 continues to ensure that the entire State of Texas is provided with adequate public notice of any proposed Standard Permit with statewide applicability and ensures that citizens in Texas are afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposed Standard Permit. Section 110(l) of the CAA states that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. Based upon our review of the Texas SIP submittals discussed in this notice and the Technical Support Document, we believe indicate that the revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of the Act. IV. Proposed Action For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve and requests comments on the changes to 30 TAC 116.603 (Public Participation in Issuance of Standard Permits) submitted October 9, 2006, as a revision to the Texas SIP. EPA will evaluate all significant comments in finalizing its decision. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; 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 rule 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, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 5, 2008. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* [FR Doc. E8-10924 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7779] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7779, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.,* and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Douglas County, Nevada, and Incorporated Areas Airport Tributary Wash Approximately 5,400 feet upstream of Freemont Street None +4958 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County Approximately 7,445 feet upstream of Freemont Street None +5019 Airport Wash Approximately 2,475 feet upstream of East Valley Road None +4902 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 9,175 feet upstream of East Valley Road +5015 +5009 Bobwhite Wash Confluence with Juniper Road Wash +5121 +5123 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,390 feet upstream of confluence with Juniper Road Wash +5136 +5135 Buckbrush Wash Approximately 645 feet downstream of Fuller Avenue None +4786 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,320 feet upstream of Lindsay Lane None +5019 Buckeye Creek Approximately 4,933 feet downstream of Orbit Way None +4762 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 7,624 feet upstream of Juniper Road +4973 +5008 Calle De Asco Wash Confluence with Calle Hermosa Wash None +5070 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,525 feet upstream of confluence with Calle Hermosa Wash None +5114 Calle Hermosa Wash Approximately 469 feet downstream of Ty Lane +4881 +4884 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 1,598 feet upstream of Calle Hermosa Road None +5122 Johnson Lane Wash Approximately 3,555 feet downstream of Squires Street None +4782 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 2,939 feet upstream of Nye Drive None +4991 Juniper Road Wash Approximately 1,935 feet downstream of Coyote Road +4880 +4881 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of Carlson Drive None +5194 Sunrise Pass Wash At MacKay Way None +4907 Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County. Approximately 3,310 feet upstream of MacKay Way None +4991 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County Maps are available for inspection at 1615 Eight Street, Minden, NV 89423. Hertford County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Ahoskie Creek At the confluence with Wiccacon River and Bear Swamp None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Town of Ahoskie. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Ahoskie Creek Tributary 8 None +62 Ahoskie Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +18 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,325 feet upstream of DT Road (State Road 1419) None +23 Ahoskie Creek Tributary 7 At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +52 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +57 Banks Creek At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 960 feet upstream of the confluence with Banks Creek Tributary 1 None +18 Banks Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Banks Creek None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Banks Creek None +25 Barbeque Swamp At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek and Chinkapin Swamp None +13 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. At the Hertford/Bertie County boundary None +19 Bear Swamp At the confluence with Wiccacon River and Ahoskie Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,111 feet upstream of Ahoskie Cofield Road (State Road 1403) None +34 Bells Branch At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +33 Bluewater Branch At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Bluewater Branch Tributary 2 None +43 Bluewater Branch Tributary 1 At the confluence with Bluewater Branch None +32 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Leweter Farm Road (State Road 1139) None +43 Bluewater Branch Tributary 2 At the confluence with Bluewater Branch None +40 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Bluewater Branch None +49 Brooks Creek At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Bazemore Road (State Road 1445) None +22 Buckhorn Creek At the confluence with Chowan River None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Buckhorn Church Road (State Road 1316) None +59 Catherine Creek At the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Catherine Creek Tributary 1 None +20 Catherine Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Catherine Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Catherine Creek None +11 Chinkapin Creek At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. At the confluence of Chinkapin Swamp and Barbeque Swamp None +13 Chinkapin Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence of Chinkapin Creek Tributary 1A None +17 Chinkapin Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek Tributary 1 None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Chinkapin Creek Tributary 1 None +17 Chinkapin Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,390 feet upstream of Big Mill Road (State Road 1432) None +14 Chinkapin Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Chinkapin Creek None +16 Chinkapin Swamp At the confluence with Barbeque Swamp and Chinkapin Creek None +13 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Chinkapin Creek and Barbeque Swamp None +14 Chowan River At the Hertford/Bertie/Chowan County boundary None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Town of Winton. At the Virginia/North Carolina State boundary None +13 Chowan River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Chowan River None +39 Cutawhiskie Creek At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Fennell Road (State Road 1155) None +55 Cutawhiskie Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +36 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +40 Cutawhiskie Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +39 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +43 Cutawhiskie Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +49 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +51 Deep Creek At the confluence with Chowan River None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep Creek Tributary 1 None +21 Deep Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Deep Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep Creek None +23 Deep Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Deep Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Village of Cofield. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep Creek None +22 Deep Swamp At the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Cullen Road (State Road 1439) None +55 Deep Swamp Tributary 1 At the confluence with Deep Swamp None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep Swamp None +26 Deep Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Deep Swamp None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep Swamp None +29 Deep Swamp Tributary 3 At the confluence with Deep Swamp None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Deep Swamp None +41 Fort Branch At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +46 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. At the Hertford/Bertie County boundary None +55 Hares Branch At the confluence with Meherrin River None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Town of Murfreesboro. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +25 Horse Swamp At the confluence with Bear Swamp None +20 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Railroad None +35 Indian Creek At the confluence with Cutawhiskie Creek None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Flea Hill Road (State Road 1142) None +39 Kill 'em Swamp At the confluence with Long Branch None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Long Branch None +19 Kirby Creek At the confluence with Meherrin River None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of the confluence with Turkey Creek None +17 Liverman Creek At the confluence with Meherrin River None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Spiers Road (State Road 1317) None +78 Liverman Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Liverman Creek None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Parkers Ferry Road (State Road 1306) None +21 Liverman Creek Tributary 1A At the confluence with Liverman Creek Tributary 1 None +16 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Liverman Creek Tributary 1 None +26 Liverman Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Liverman Creek None +21 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 258 None +28 Long Branch At the confluence with Chinkapin Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Quebec Road (State Road 1002) None +37 Long Branch Tributary 1 At the confluence with Long Branch None +13 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Long Branch None +19 Long Branch Tributary 2 At the confluence with Long Branch None +15 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Quebec Road (State Road 1002) None +29 Long Branch Tributary 3 At the confluence with Long Branch None +20 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Long Branch None +27 Long Branch Tributary 4 At the confluence with Long Branch None +24 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Long Branch None +44 Meherrin River At the confluence with the Chowan River None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Town of Murfreesboro. Approximately 50 feet upstream of the Virginia/North Carolina State boundary None +26 Meherrin River Tributary 1 At the confluence with Meherrin River None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence with Meherrin River None +22 Meherrin River Tributary 2 At the confluence with Meherrin River None +12 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Mapleton Road (State Road 1303) None +29 Meherrin River Tributary 3 At the confluence with Meherrin River None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Boones Bridge Road (State Road 1311) None +34 Meherrin River Tributary 4 At the confluence with Meherrin River None +19 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Boones Bridge Road (State Road 1311) None +25 Mill Branch At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +17 Mill Branch South At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +54 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +57 Mill Branch Tributary 1 At the confluence with Mill Branch None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Mill Branch None +19 Old Tree Swamp At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Beaver Dam Road (State Road 1167) None +50 Panther Swamp At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +30 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,170 feet upstream of Pine Tops Road None +49 Panther Swamp Tributary 2 At the confluence with Panther Swamp None +44 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Panther Swamp None +49 Potecasi Creek At the confluence with the Meherrin River None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. At the Hertford/Northampton County boundary None +36 Potecasi Creek Tributary 1 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +10 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of U.S. 158 Highway West None +36 Potecasi Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Country Club Road (State Road 1108) None +28 Potecasi Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Potecasi Creek None +26 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 930 feet downstream of Boone Farm Road (State Route 1108) None +30 Snake Branch At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +29 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 1,020 feet upstream of Jernigan Airport Road (State Road 1100) None +41 Stony Creek At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +25 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. The Hertford/Bertie County boundary None +25 Turkey Creek At the confluence with Kirby Creek None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 70 feet upstream of U.S. Highway 158 None +50 Turkey Creek (South) At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +41 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 930 feet upstream of NC Highway 11 None +49 Turnpike Branch At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +10 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Village of Cofield. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Ahoskie Cofield Road None +37 White Oak Swamp At the confluence with Ahoskie Creek None +11 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County, Town of Ahoskie. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Newsome Grove Road None +42 Wiccacon River At the confluence with Chowan River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. At the confluence of Ahoskie Creek and Bear Swamp None +11 Wiccacon River Tributary 2 At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Wiccacon Road (State Road 1443) None +14 Wiccacon River Tributary 4 At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +8 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Wiccacon River None +13 Wiccacon River Tributary 6 At the confluence with Wiccacon River None +9 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Wiccacon River Tributary 6A None +12 Wiccacon River Tributary 6A At the confluence with Wiccacon River Tributary 6 None +9 Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Wiccacon River Tributary 6 None +12 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Ahoskie Maps are available for inspection at Ahoskie Town Hall, 201 West Main Street, Ahoskie, NC. Town of Murfreesboro Maps are available for inspection at Murfreesboro Town Hall, 105 East Broad Street, Murfreesboro, NC. Town of Winton Maps are available for inspection at Hertford County Planning Department, 704 North King Street, Winton, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Hertford County Maps are available for inspection at Hertford County Planning Department, 704 North King Street, Winton, NC. Village of Cofield Maps are available for inspection at Cofield Village Hall, 105 Milton Street, Cofield, NC. Yadkin County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas North Deep Creek Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence with Deep Creek and South Deep Creek None +739 Unincorporated Areas of Yadkin County, Town of Yadkinville. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Spencer Road (SR 1385) None +1,065 North Deep Creek Tributary 2A At the confluence with North Deep Creek Tributary 2 None +860 Unincorporated Areas of Yadkin County, Town of Yadkinville. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with North Deep Creek Tributary 2 None +877 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES Town of Boonville Maps are available for inspection at Boonville Town Hall, 110 North Carolina Avenue, Boonville, NC. Town of East Bend Maps are available for inspection at East Bend Town Hall, 108 West Main Street, East Bend, NC. Town of Jonesville Maps are available for inspection at Jonesville Town Hall, 136 West Main Street, Jonesville, NC. Town of Yadkinville Maps are available for inspection at Yadkinville Town Hall, 213 Van Buren Street, Yadkinville, NC. Unincorporated Areas of Yadkin County Maps are available for inspection at Yadkin County Manager's Office, 217 East Willow Street, Yadkinville, NC. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: May 7, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10868 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0049; 1111 FY08 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Ashy Storm-Petrel ( Oceanodroma homochroa ) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the ashy storm-petrel ( *Oceanodroma homochroa* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the ashy storm-petrel may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the species to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are soliciting information and data regarding this species. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species, which was also requested in the petition, if, and when, we initiate a listing action. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that information be submitted on or before July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2008-0049; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707-822-7201; facsimile 707-822-8411. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available science and commercial information, we are soliciting additional information on the ashy storm-petrel. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of the ashy storm-petrel throughout its range, including but not limited to:
(1)The historical and current status and distribution of ashy storm-petrel; the species' biology and ecology; ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat; and threats to the species and its habitat.
(2)The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b)Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)Disease or predation;
(d)The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e)Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
(3)Timing within year, type, and amount of human activities (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing, tourism) at locations where ashy storm-petrels are known or suspected to breed, including but not limited to: Van Damme Rock (Mendocino County); Bird, Chimney, and Double Point Rocks (Marin County); the Farallon Islands (San Francisco County); Castle and Hurricane Point Rocks (Monterey County); San Miguel Island, Castle Rock, Prince Island, mainland locations and offshore islets at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara Island, Sutil Island, and Shag Rock (Santa Barbara County); Anacapa Island (Ventura County); Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island (Los Angeles County); and Islas Los Coronados and Islas Todos Santos, Mexico.
(4)Projected changes in sea level along the coast of California during the 21st century, specifically at the locations listed in
(3)above.
(5)Elevations of known and suitable breeding habitat at the locations listed in
(3)above.
(6)Projected acidification of oceanic waters of the California Current during the 21st century.
(7)Locations of oil tanker routes, and timing and frequency of oil tanker traffic along the coast of California and Northern Baja California, Mexico.
(8)Nighttime observations of ashy storm-petrels, other storm-petrels, other nocturnal seabirds (e.g., Xantus's murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)), and other seabirds (e.g., gulls ( *Larus* sp.)) on or near boats (commercial or recreational) off central and southern California and Baja California, Mexico.
(9)Measured and observed nighttime lighting, and timing within year of nighttime lighting by boats (commercial and recreational) at locations listed in
(3)above.
(10)Daily and seasonal activity patterns of ashy storm-petrels and avian predators of ashy storm-petrels (e.g., western gull ( *Larus occidentalis* ), burrowing owl ( *Athene cunicularia* )) at breeding locations in general and, specifically, in relation to light intensity at night.
(11)Abundance and distribution of predators of ashy storm-petrels at ashy storm-petrel breeding locations.
(12)Observations of ashy storm-petrels or other storm-petrels at night on offshore oil platforms, or additional evidence that ashy storm-petrels are attracted to or have collided with offshore oil platforms.
(13)Locations of proposed offshore liquefied natural gas
(LNG)facilities along the coast of California and Northern Baja California, Mexico.
(14)Evidence of organochlorine contamination of ashy storm-petrel eggs and birds.
(15)Ingestion of plastics by ashy storm-petrels, and distribution and abundance of plastics in the California Current.
(16)Military activities at sea and on islands off the coast of California and northern Baja California, Mexico.
(17)Factors that pose a threat to ashy storm-petrels (those listed above, and otherwise) and the potential cumulative effects of these factors that may threaten or endanger ashy storm-petrels. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Based on the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via *http://www.regulations.gov* , your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. On October 16, 2007, we received a formal petition, dated October 15, 2007, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that we list the ashy storm-petrel. The petition also requested that critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and potential causes of decline and active imminent threats. In response to the petition, we sent a letter to the petitioner dated January 11, 2008, stating that we had secured funding and that we anticipated making an initial finding as to whether the petition contained substantial information indicating listing the ashy storm-petrel may be warranted in Fiscal Year 2008. We also concluded in our January 11, 2008, letter that emergency listing of the ashy storm-petrel was not warranted. Species Information The ashy storm-petrel is a seabird species belonging to the order Procellariiformes, family Hydrobatidae. The ashy storm-petrel is one of five storm-petrel species (including fork-tailed ( *O. furcata* ), Leach's ( *O. leucorhoa* ), black ( *O. melania* ), and least ( *O. microsoma* ) storm-petrels) that nest on islands along the west coast of North America (Harrison 1983, pp. 272-278). The ashy storm-petrel is a smoke-gray, medium-sized bird with long slender wings, a long forked tail, and webbed feet (Ainley 1995, p. 2). Ashy storm-petrels have been confirmed to breed at 26 locations on islands and offshore rocks from Marin County, California, south to Todos Santos Islands, west of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico (Carter *et al.* 1992, pp. 77-81; Ainley 1995, p. 2; Carter *et al.* 2006, p. 6; Carter *et al.* 2008, p. 118). In addition, ashy storm-petrels possibly breed at five locations from Mendocino County south to San Clemente Island (Carter *et al.* 2008, pp. 118-119). The species breeds primarily in two population centers at the Farallon Islands and in the California Channel Islands (Sowls *et al.* 1980, p. 24; Ainley *et al.* 1990, p. 135; Carter *et al.* 1992, p. 86). Ashy storm-petrels do not excavate burrows; rather, they nest in crevices of talus slopes, rock walls, sea caves, cliffs, and driftwood (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 87-88; Ainley *et al.* 1990, p. 147; McIver 2002, p. 1). The breeding season is protracted, and activities at nesting locations occur from March through January (James-Veitch 1970, p. 71). Clutch size is one egg per year (Ainley 1995, p. 6). The egg-laying period extends from late March to October, peaking in June and July (James-Veitch 1970, p. 243; Ainley *et al.* 1990, p. 148; McIver 2002, pp. 34-36). The average period of incubation is 44 days (James-Veitch 1970, p. 244). Hatchlings are “semi-precocial” (James-Veitch 1970, p. 128). The term semi-precocial describes young that have characteristics of precocial young at hatch (open eyes, down, capacity to leave the nest), but that remain at the nest and are cared for by parents until close to adult size (Sibley 2001, p. 573). Chicks are brooded and attended by adults for approximately the first week of life, after which time they are left unattended in the nest during the day (James-Veitch 1970, p. 141). Chicks are fed irregularly, once every 1 to 3 nights on average (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 180-208). At Southeast Farallon Island, James-Veitch (1970, p. 212) reported a mean of 76 days from hatching to fledging; Ainley *et al.* (1990, p. 152) reported a mean of 84 days from hatching to fledging. Fledging occurs at night, from late August to January, and once they leave the nest, fledglings are independent of their parents (Ainley *et al.* 1974, p. 303; McIver 2002, p. 36). Nonbreeding ashy storm-petrels also visit breeding locations during the breeding season (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 242-243). Although visitations are reduced during the months of January and February, ashy storm-petrels visit nesting locations throughout the year, and most intensely from February into October (Ainley *et al.* 1974, p. 301). The nocturnal activity (return to and departure from nest) and crevice nesting of this species are adaptations to avoid predation by diurnal predators such as western gulls, burrowing owls, peregrine falcons ( *Falco peregrinus* ), and common ravens ( *Corvus corax* ) (Ainley 1995, p. 5; McIver and Carter 2006, p. 3). Ashy storm-petrels are susceptible to predation at night by barn owls ( *Tyto alba* ) (McIver 2002, p. 30). Nesting in crevices and burrows on remote headlands, offshore rocks, and islands generally reduces predation of storm-petrels by mammalian predators (Warham 1990, p. 13). Known mammalian predators of ashy storm-petrels and their eggs include house mice ( *Mus musculus* ), deer mice ( *Peromyscus maniculatus* ), and island spotted skunks ( *Spilogale gracilis amphiala* ) (Ainley *et al.* 1990, p. 146; McIver 2002, pp. 40-41; McIver and Carter 2006, p. 3). Ashy storm-petrels are nonmigratory and forage primarily in the California Current from northern California to central Baja California, Mexico; birds forage in areas of upwelling, seaward of the continental shelf, near islands and the coast (Ainley *et al.* 1974, p. 300; Briggs *et al.* 1987, p. 23; Mason *et al.* 2007, p. 60). Four thousand to six thousand ashy storm-petrels are usually observed in the fall in Monterey Bay, approximately 3 to 10 miles (5 to 16 kilometers) off the town of Moss Landing, California, and as many as 10,000 ashy storm-petrels were estimated to be present in Monterey Bay in October 1977 (Roberson 1985, p. 42). Storm-petrels feed on small invertebrates and fish picked from the ocean surface (Warham 1990, p. 186). The diet of ashy storm-petrels has not been extensively studied, but includes euphausiids (spp. *Euphausia, Thysanoessa* ), other crustaceans, unidentified fish and squid (G. McChesney, personal communication, 1999). Obtaining direct population counts of ashy storm-petrels is difficult, because the species nests in often deep, inaccessible crevices (Carter *et al.* 1992, p. 77; Sydeman *et al.* 1998b, p. 438). The world population of ashy storm-petrels has been estimated to be on the order of 10,000 birds (Sowls *et al.* 1980, p. 24; Ainley 1995, p. 1); estimates of breeding birds for California have ranged from 5,187 (Sowls *et al.* 1980, p. 25) to 7,209 (Carter *et al.* 1992, p. 87). Results from Sydeman *et al.* (1998b, p. 445) indicate a reduction in ashy storm-petrel population size at Southeast Farallon Island from 1972 to 1992, ranging from 28 to 44 percent. Sydeman *et al.* (1998b, p. 445) report that this decline occurred in prime nesting habitat and was apparently greater for breeding birds. Sydeman *et al.* (1998b, pp. 445-446) suggest that this decline in population size at Southeast Farallon Island may be due, in part, to an increase in the predation rate on ashy storm-petrel adults and sub-adults by western gulls, which expanded into prime ashy storm-petrel nesting habitat over the course of their study. Research on reproductive success of the ashy storm-petrel has been conducted at Southeast Farallon Island (James-Veitch 1970; Ainley *et al.* 1990; Sydeman *et al.* 1998a; Sydeman *et al.* , unpublished data) and Santa Cruz Island (McIver 2002; McIver *et al.* , in preparation). Reported productivity values have been variable. For example, on Southeast Farallon Island, reported productivity values are: 0.40 chicks per pair during 1964 to 1965 (James-Veitch 1970, p. 235); 0.69 chicks per pair during 1972 to 1983 (Ainley *et al.* 1990, p. 155); 0.73 chicks per pair during 1971 to 1995 (Sydeman *et al.* 1998a, p. 20) and 0.52 chicks per pair during 1995 to 1998 (Sydeman *et al.* , unpublished data). On Santa Cruz Island, reported productivity values are: 0.51 chicks per pair during 1995 to 1998 (McIver 2002, p. 44); and 0.63 chicks per pair during 2005 to 2007 (McIver *et al.* , in preparation, p. 25). No data are currently available regarding adult life span, survivorship, and age at first breeding of ashy storm-petrels (Ainley 1995, p. 8). However, like other procellariids, storm-petrels are long-lived (Warham 1996, p. 20). Some ashy storm-petrels reach 25 years old (Sydeman *et al.* 1998a, p. 7), and breeding adults over 20 years in age have been reported in the closely-related Leach's storm-petrel (Morse and Buchheister 1977, p. 344). Mean age of first breeding in the Leach's storm-petrel has been reported at 5.9 years ± 1.3 standard deviation (Huntington *et al.* 1996, p. 19). Sydeman *et al.* (1998a, p. 7) conducted population viability analyses based upon observations by C. Huntington, and assumed that 90 percent of adult ashy storm-petrels were capable of breeding at 6 years of age. Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information on threats to the ashy storm-petrel in our files and presented with the October 2007 petition constitute substantial scientific or commercial information such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range The petitioner asserts that the ashy storm-petrel's island breeding habitat is being modified and degraded by artificial light pollution, introduced species, and current and future climate change; they further assert that its at-sea foraging habitat is being modified and degraded by artificial light pollution, chemical and plastics pollution, and current and future ocean climate change (Petition, p. 15). The market squid ( *Loligo opalescens* ) fishery is a source of artificial light at night near breeding locations in the California Channel Islands, and could result in increased mortality of storm-petrels due to predation by diurnal predators and direct collision with lights (McIver 2002, pp. 51-2; Maxwell *et al.* 2004, pp. 666-69). Ashy storm-petrels have been recovered dead on an offshore oil platform off the coast of southern California, and from mainland locations in southern California, presumably due to attraction to and collision with bright lights (Carter *et al.* 2000, p. 443). In addition, oil pollution may pose a threat to ashy storm-petrels. A major oil spill off Monterey Bay during the fall could affect thousands of ashy storm-petrels that concentrate in that area (Roberson 1985, p. 42; Sydeman *et al.* 1998, p. 439). Hampton *et al.* (2003, p. 32) analyzed dumping of tank washings of oil tankers at sea and suggested that the greatest threat of oiling existed for seabird species occurring (while at sea) greater than 80 kilometers (50 miles) offshore, including ashy storm-petrels. We found substantial evidence presented in the petition indicating that artificial light pollution near breeding colonies and at sea, and at-sea oil pollution may threaten ashy storm-petrels. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petitioner asserts that research activities may impact ashy storm-petrels, but also states that there is no evidence that this impact has had significant negative consequences on studied populations (Petition, p. 30). Therefore, we do not consider this a significant factor affecting the species. C. Disease or Predation The petitioner asserts that predation by native predators, including western gulls, burrowing owls, barn owls, and peregrine falcons, and nonnative predators, including house mice ( *Mus musculus* ), black rats ( *Rattus rattus* ), and feral cats ( *Felis domesticus* ), impact ashy storm-petrel populations (Petition, pp. 30-32). Sydeman *et al.* (1998, pp. 438-447) reported an increase in the western gull population at Southeast Farallon Island, and an expansion of nesting by western gulls into prime nesting habitat of ashy storm-petrels on the island. They suggested that the decline in population size of ashy storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon Island between the early 1970s and the early 1990s may be due (in part) to an increase in the predation rate on ashy storm-petrels by western gulls. We find substantial information presented in the petition indicating that predation at nesting colonies may threaten ashy storm-petrels. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petitioner asserts that existing regulatory mechanisms have been ineffective at preventing the decline of the ashy storm-petrel and in mitigating many of the threats to the species (Petition, p. 32). The petitioner claims that the ineffectiveness of regulatory mechanisms is demonstrated by the failure to eradicate nonnative predators, the inadequate regulation of artificial light pollution, the failure to restrict human disturbance at breeding sites, the lack of regulations on greenhouse gases, and the failure of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect the species from identified threats (Petition, pp. 32-35). As discussed above, we do find threats to the species from artificial light pollution and predation, and thus find that the petition presents substantial evidence that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may threaten ashy storm-petrels. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Continued Existence The petitioner cites human disturbance through tourism and military activities as the primary threats under this category (Petition, p. 35). We do not find that the petition presents substantial information supporting the petitioner's claimed threats under this category. However, information in the petition indicates that the ashy storm-petrel may be threatened by the contamination of eggs and birds by organochlorine chemicals. Eggshell thinning and organochlorine contamination of ashy storm-petrel eggs have been documented during the 1970s and 1990s (Coulter and Risebrough, pp. 254-255; Fry 1994, pp. 1-29; Kiff 1994, pp. 1-24; D. Welsh and H. Carter, unpublished notes). We find that the petition presents substantial information that the contamination of eggs and birds by organochlorine chemicals may threaten ashy storm-petrels. Finding We reviewed the petition, supporting information provided by the petitioner, and information in our files, and we evaluated that information to determine whether the sources cited support the claims made in the petition. Based on this review, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the ashy storm-petrel may be threatened by Factor A, due to artificial light pollution near breeding colonies and at sea, and by at-sea oil pollution; by Factor C, due to predation at nesting colonies; by Factor D, due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and by Factor E, due to contamination of eggs and birds by organochlorine chemicals. On the basis of our review, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the ashy storm-petrel as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species under the Act is warranted. The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for the ashy storm-petrel. We always consider the need for critical habitat designation when listing species. If we determine in our 12-month finding following the status review of the species that listing the ashy storm-petrel is warranted, we will address the designation of critical habitat at the time of the proposed rulemaking. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this document is available, upon request, from our Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 6, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-10790 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R4-ES-2008-0041; 92210-1117-0000-B4] RIN 1018-AU48 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover in North Carolina AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period, revisions to proposed critical habitat boundaries, notice of availability of revised draft economic analysis and environmental assessment, and amended required determinations. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover ( *Charadrius melodus* ) in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina (71 FR 33703, June 12, 2006). In this document, we are proposing to add 87 hectares
(ha)(215 acres (ac)) of critical habitat to two previously proposed units. As a result, our proposed revised critical habitat designation for the species now includes 4 revised critical habitat units totaling approximately 827 ha (2,043 ac). We also announce the availability of the revised draft economic analysis
(DEA)and environmental assessment of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period on the June 12, 2006, proposed rule to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on that proposal, the proposed revised critical habitat units described in this document, our amended required determinations, and the associated revised DEA and environmental assessment. Please do not resend comments you have already submitted. We will incorporate comments previously submitted into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them when preparing our final determination. DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1018-AU48; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726, (telephone 919-856-4520; facsimile 919-856-4556). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our June 12, 2006, proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina (71 FR 33703), the additional areas of critical habitat proposed in this document, the amended required determinations provided in this document, and our revised DEA and environmental assessment of the proposed revised designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1)The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as critical habitat under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh any threats to the species due to designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.
(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of wintering piping plover habitat in North Carolina, • What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why, and • What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat.
(4)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in particular, any such impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed revised designation.
(5)Any foreseeable environmental impacts directly or indirectly resulting from the proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
(6)Information regarding our identification, in our June 12, 2006, proposed rule, of specific areas as not being in need of special management.
(7)Information to assist the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating habitat with physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the piping plover on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, administered by the National Park Service, based on any benefit provided by the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment (Interim Strategy; NPS 2006) to the conservation of the wintering piping plover.
(8)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
(9)Information on whether the DEA identifies all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed revised critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits that we have overlooked.
(10)Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes likely if we designate revised critical habitat.
(11)Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result from the revised critical habitat designation.
(12)Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could result from the revised designation and whether you agree with the analysis.
(13)Whether there is any information to suggest that beach recreation might increase as a result of this designation, and whether the effects of any such increased visitation can be quantified. If you submitted comments or information during the initial comment period from June 12, 2006, to August 11, 2006 (71 FR 33703), or during the reopened comment period from May 31, 2007, to July 30, 2007 (72 FR 30326), or at the public hearing held on June 20, 2007, on the proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during all comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed do not contain the features essential to the conservation of the species or are not themselves essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via *http://www.regulations.gov* , your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this notice, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA at *http://www.regulations.gov* , by mail from the Raleigh Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or by visiting our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/nc-es* . Background It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information on the biology and ecology of the wintering population of the piping plover, refer to the final rule to designate critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038), and the proposed rule to designate revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina published in the **Federal Register** on June 12, 2006 (71 FR 33703). The piping plover is a small, pale-colored shorebird that breeds in three discrete areas of North America—the Northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Coast—and winters in coastal areas of the United States from North Carolina to Texas, along the coast of eastern Mexico, and on the Caribbean islands from Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas. We published a rule to list the piping plover as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range on December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726). All piping plovers on migratory routes outside of the Great Lakes watershed or on their wintering grounds (which includes the State of North Carolina) are considered threatened. We first designated critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in 137 areas along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 36038). This designation included approximately 2,891.7 kilometers
(km)(1,798.3 miles (mi)) of mapped shoreline and approximately 66,881 ha (165,211 ac) of mapped areas along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and along margins of interior bays, inlets, and lagoons. In February 2003, two North Carolina counties (Dare and Hyde) and a beach access group (Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance) filed a lawsuit challenging our designation of four units of critical habitat on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina (Units NC-1, NC-2, NC-4, and NC-5). In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded to us the 2001 designation of the four units ( *Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance* v. *U.S. Department of the Interior* , 344 F. Supp 2d 108). In response to the court's order, we published, on June 12, 2006, a proposed rule to revise designated critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina (71 FR 33703). That proposed rule described four coastal areas (named Units NC-1, NC-2, NC-4, and NC-5), totaling approximately 739.4 ha (1,827.2 ac) entirely within Cape Hatteras National Seashore, as critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover. On May 31, 2007, we announced in the **Federal Register** the availability of a draft economic analysis and environmental assessment on the proposed revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (72 FR 30326). We are now modifying the June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703) to add previously excluded areas to two of the proposed units, as described below in the “Additional Proposed Critical Habitat Areas” section. As a result of these additions and revisions, the proposed critical habitat now encompasses 827 ha (2,043 ac), an increase of 87 ha (215 ac) from the June 12, 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 33703). Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule (with the changes proposed in this document) is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as critical habitat, unless failure to designate that specific area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat taking into consideration economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. Additional Proposed Critical Habitat Areas By this document, we are advising the public of new proposed revisions to two of the four units described in the June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703). In that rule, we determined that the islands DR-005-05 and DR-005-06 (Dare County) and DR-009-03/04 (Dare and Hyde Counties), owned by the State of North Carolina, and about 96 ha (137 ac) of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Dare County) did not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act. However, we have reconsidered our preliminary analysis of the special management or protection needs of the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species on these lands and have now determined that these areas should be proposed as critical habitat. This determination is based on *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton* , 240 F. Supp 2d 1090, 1099 (D. Ariz. 2003), which held that if a habitat is already under some sort of management for its conservation, that particular habitat required special management considerations or protection and, therefore, meets the definition of critical habitat. As such, we are now including these areas in this proposed revised critical habitat, and we are considering whether the areas should be excluded from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based on economic or other relevant impacts, and taking into account the existing protections in our benefit analysis. The two proposed revised units that are expanded by the newly proposed areas are Unit NC-1 (Oregon Inlet) and NC-4 (Hatteras Inlet); we propose to incorporate the areas previously omitted from the June 12, 2006, proposal (i.e., several State-owned islands and portions of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge) into Unit NC-1 and Unit NC-4. These additional areas of the proposed revised units are located within the range of the population, were occupied at the time of listing and are considered currently occupied, and contain habitat features essential for the conservation of the wintering population of piping plover, as described in the “Primary Constituent Elements” of our June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703). The additional areas total 87 ha (215 ac). As a result of these additions, together with the revisions to area estimates proposed in the June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703), the proposed revised critical habitat now encompasses 827 ha (2,043 ac) in four units. The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 1. Table 1.—Revised Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Wintering Population of the Piping Plover in North Carolina [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] Critical habitat units Land ownership Proposed hectares (acres) (from June 12, 2006, proposed rule) Additional proposed hectares (acres) (proposed in this document) Total proposed hectares (acres) Unit NC-1, Oregon Inlet Federal, State 115.0 (284.0) 81
(201)196
(485)Unit NC-2, Cape Hatteras Point Federal 261.0 (646.0) 0 262
(646)Unit NC-4, Hatteras Inlet Federal, State 160.0 (396.0) 6
(14)166
(410)Unit NC-5, Ocracoke Island Federal 203.0 (502.0) 0 203.0 (502.0) Total 739.0 (1,827.0) 87
(215)827 (2,043) Below, we present brief descriptions of the two revised units (NC-1 and NC-4) and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the piping plover. As stated in the June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703), the textual unit descriptions of the units in the regulation constitute the definitive determination as to whether an area is within the critical habitat boundary. Unit NC-1: Oregon Inlet Unit NC-1 is approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) long, and consists of about 196 ha (485 ac) of sandy beach and inlet spit habitat on Bodie Island and Pea Island in Dare County, North Carolina. This is the northernmost critical habitat unit proposed within the wintering range of the piping plover. Oregon Inlet is the northernmost inlet in coastal North Carolina, approximately 19.0 km (12.0 mi) southeast of the Town of Manteo, the county seat of Dare County. The proposed unit at Oregon Inlet is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and Pamlico Sound on the west and includes lands from the mean lower low water
(MLLW)on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat (which is not used by piping plovers and where the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species do not occur) and from the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side to the line of stable, densely vegetated habitat, or (where a line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat does not exist) lands from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side. The unit begins at Ramp 4 near the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center on Bodie Island and extends approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) south to the intersection of NC Highway 12 and Salt Flats Wildlife Trail (near Mile Marker 30, NC Highway 12), approximately 5.0 km (3.0 mi) from the groin, on Pea Island, and includes Green Island and any emergent sandbars south and west of Oregon Inlet, and the lands owned by the State of North Carolina, specifically Islands DR-005-05 and DR-005-06. However, this unit does not include the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center, NC Highway 12, the Bonner Bridge and its associated structures, the terminal groin, the historic Pea Island Life-Saving Station, or any of their ancillary facilities (e.g., parking lots, out buildings). This unit contains the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Areas of the unit contain a contiguous mix of intertidal beaches and sand or mud flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) with no or very sparse emergent vegetation, and adjacent areas of unvegetated or sparsely vegetated dune systems and sand or mud flats above annual high tide. Oregon Inlet has reported consistent use by wintering piping plovers dating from the mid-1960s. As many as 100 piping plovers have been reported from a single day survey during the fall migration (NCWRC unpublished data). Christmas bird counts regularly recorded 20 to 30 plovers using the area. Recent surveys have also recorded consistent and repeated use of the area by banded piping plovers from the endangered Great Lakes breeding population (J. Stucker, University of Minnesota, unpublished data). The overall number of piping plovers reported using the area has declined since the species was listed in 1986 (NCWRC unpublished data), which corresponds to increases in the number of human users (NPS 2005) and off-road vehicles (Davis and Truett 2000). Oregon Inlet is one of the first beach access points for off-road vehicles within Cape Hatteras National Seashore when traveling from the developed coastal communities of Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, and Manteo. As such, the inlet spit is a popular area for off-road vehicle users to congregate. The majority of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore users in this area are off-road vehicle owners and recreational fishermen. In fact, a recent visitor use study of Cape Hatteras National Seashore reported that Oregon Inlet is the second most popular off-road vehicle use area in the park (Vogelsong 2003). Furthermore, the adjacent islands are easily accessed by boat, which can be launched from the nearby Oregon Inlet Fishing Center. Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge does not allow off-road vehicle use; however, Pea Island regularly receives dredged sediments from the maintenance dredging of Oregon Inlet by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The disposal of dredged sediments on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge has the potential to disturb foraging and roosting plovers and their habitats. As a result, the sandy beach and mud and sand flat habitat being proposed as critical habitat in this unit may require special management considerations or protection. Unit NC-4: Hatteras Inlet Unit NC-4 is approximately 8.0 km (5.0 mi) long, and consists of 166 ha (410 ac) of sandy beach and inlet spit habitat on the western end of Hatteras Island and the eastern end of Ocracoke Island in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. The unit begins at the first beach access point at Ramp 55 at the end of NC Highway 12 near the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum on the western end of Hatteras Island and continues southwest to the beach access at the ocean-side parking lot near Ramp 59 on the northeastern end of Ocracoke Island. This unit includes lands from the MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat (which itself is not used by the piping plover and where PBFs do not occur) and from the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side to the line of stable, densely vegetated habitat, or (where a line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat does not exist) lands from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side. The proposed unit at Hatteras Inlet includes all emergent sandbars within Hatteras Inlet including lands owned by the State of North Carolina, specifically Island DR-009-03/04. The unit is adjacent to, but does not include the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, the ferry terminal, the groin on Ocracoke Island, NC Highway 12, or their ancillary facilities ( *e.g.* , parking lots, out buildings). This unit contains the features essential to the conservation of the species. Areas of the unit contain a contiguous mix of intertidal beaches and sand or mud flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) with no or very sparse emergent vegetation, and adjacent areas of unvegetated or sparsely vegetated dune systems and sand or mud flats above annual high tide. Hatteras Inlet has reported consistent use by wintering piping plovers since the early 1980s, but the specific area of use was not consistently recorded in earlier reports. Often piping plovers found at Cape Hatteras Point, Cape Hatteras Cove, and Hatteras Inlet were reported as a collective group. However, more recent surveys report plover use at Hatteras Inlet independently from Cape Hatteras Point. These single-day surveys have recorded as many as 40 piping plovers a day during migration (NCWRC unpublished data). Christmas bird counts regularly recorded 2 to 11 plovers using the area. Recent surveys have also recorded consistent and repeated use of the area by banded piping plovers from the endangered Great Lakes breeding population (J. Stucker, University of Minnesota, unpublished data). The overall numbers of piping plovers reported using the area has declined in the last 10 years (NCWRC unpublished data), corresponding with increases in the number of human users (NPS 2005) and off-road vehicles (Davis and Truett 2000). Hatteras Inlet is located near the Village of Hatteras, Dare County, and is the southernmost point of Cape Hatteras National Seashore that can be reached without having to take a ferry. As such, the inlet is a popular off-road vehicle and recreational fishing area. In fact, a recent visitor use study of the park found Hatteras Inlet the fourth most used area by off-road vehicles in the park (Vogelsong 2003). Furthermore, the adjacent islands are easily accessed by boat, which can be launched from the nearby marinas of Hatteras Village. As a result, the sandy beach and mud and sand flat habitat being proposed as critical habitat in this unit may require special management considerations or protection. Draft Economic Analysis Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. On June 21, 2007, we published a document in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 34215) announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover. Because we are now proposing additional areas of critical habitat in Units NC-1 and NC-4, we have prepared a revised DEA of the proposed revised critical habitat designation. The revised DEA is described below. The intent of the DEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the wintering population of the piping plover; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The DEA estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of conservation measures for the wintering population of the piping plover within the proposed revised critical habitat designation on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. Specifically, the analysis measures how management activities undertaken by the National Park Service (NPS), the Service, and the State of North Carolina to protect wintering piping plover habitat against the threat of off-road vehicle
(ORV)use or other recreational use of the beach may affect the value of the beaches to ORV and other recreational users and the region. In this analysis, it is assumed that the primary management tool employed for wintering piping plover conservation could be the implementation of closures of certain portions of the beach. If implemented, these closures would reduce the opportunity for recreational activities, such as ORV use. The Service believes, however, that additional beach closures due to the designation of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers are unlikely. On October 18, 2007, an action was filed against the National Park Service
(NPS)in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging that the management of off-road vehicles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which would include the areas proposed for critical habitat ( *Defenders of Wildlife et. al.* v. *National Park Service et al.* , No. 2:07-CV-45-BO (E.D.N.C.)). On April 16, 2008, the parties filed with the court a proposed consent decree that would require NPS to close to ORV use areas where piping plovers (and other shorebird species) engage in prenesting and other breeding behavior. If approved by the court, these closures would occur regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. At this time, the NPS, the Service, and the State of North Carolina are not undertaking any new activities on which the Service expects to be required to consult in the future. However, the Service plans to continue to consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on future sand disposal operations on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, it plans to consult with the Federal Highway Administration on the replacement of Bonner Bridge. At this time, it is unclear if these projects will affect the proposed revised critical habitat; therefore, this analysis does not include administrative costs associated with these projects. The analysis focuses instead on the effect of public closures of beaches on ORV use and the potential administrative costs to the NPS resulting from additional section 7 consultations and other administrative duties caused by designation of critical habitat. Our analysis determines that recreation may be affected under one of two possible scenarios: the high-end scenario, which estimates that a percentage of ORV trips to proposed revised designated critical habitat areas would be lost; and the low-end scenario, which assumes that no trips would be lost. The DEA forecasts that costs associated with conservation activities for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina would range from $0 to $23.0 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $40.0 million in lost trip expenditures in undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years, with an additional $190,000 to $476,000 in administrative costs. These costs are not related to, or the result of, the recently announced beach closures designed to protect breeding piping plovers and other seabirds resulting from the above-referenced settlement agreement. Discounted forecast impacts are estimated to range from $0 to $11.9 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $20.2 million in lost trip expenditures over 20 years using a real rate of seven percent, with an additional $101,000 to $252,000 in administrative costs. This amounts to $0 to $985,000 in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $1.6 million in lost trip expenditures, annually. Using a real rate of three percent, discounted forecast impacts are estimated at $0 to $16.8 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $29.1 million in lost trip expenditures over the next 20 years, with an additional $141,000 to $354,000 in administrative costs. This amounts to $0 to $1.1 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $2.0 million in lost trip expenditures, annually. Of the four units proposed as revised critical habitat, unit NC-2 is calculated to experience the highest estimated costs (about 40 percent) in both lost consumer surplus ($0 to $9.2 million, undiscounted) and lost trip expenditures ($0 to $16.0 million, undiscounted). Units NC-4, NC-5, and NC-1 account for about 26, 20, and 14 percent, respectively, of the total potential impacts. The DEA considers the potential economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the wintering population of the piping plover, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, as well as costs attributable to the designation of revised critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the wintering population of the piping plover in areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species. The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with residential and commercial development and public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on water management and transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the DEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since 1985 (year of the species' final listing) (50 FR 50726), and considers those costs that may occur in the 19 years following the designation of critical habitat. Because the DEA considers the potential economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the wintering population of the piping plover, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act and those attributable to designation of critical habitat, the DEA may have overestimated the potential economic impacts of the revised critical habitat designation. The methodology used in the DEA assumes that in the baseline (without critical habitat designation) the entire 24,470 ac (9,903 ha) of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore will be open to ORV access except for areas closed for human safety and sensitive species' protection, and that baseline ORV use is evenly distributed over this area. On the basis of this assumption, the economists calculated an estimate of baseline ORVs per acre and evaluated potential ORV trip reductions using the number of acres potentially closed due to critical habitat designation as a percentage of total acres of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (4.8% in April through July, and 5.8% in August through March; see Exhibit 2-6 in draft DEA). We are specifically seeking comments regarding whether the methodology used in the evaluation is accurate and whether more specific information is available concerning:
(1)The area of Cape Hatteras National Seashore open to ORV use;
(2)the number of ORV trips within Cape Hatteras National Seashore;
(3)how ORV trips to Cape Hatteras National Seashore are distributed across areas; and
(4)potential impacts that could result from additional beach closures. As stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on this revised DEA, as well as on our June 12, 2006, proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina (71 FR 33703), the additional areas of critical habitat proposed in this document, the amended required determinations provided in this document, and our revised environmental assessment of the proposed revised designation. We may revise the proposed rule, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information we receive. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat designation if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) It is our position that, outside the Jurisdiction of the Tenth Federal Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the Ninth Circuit ( *Douglas County* v. *Babbitt,* 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, the court decision remanding the critical habitat designation also ordered us to prepare an environmental analysis of the proposed designation under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). To comply with the court's order, we prepared a draft environmental assessment pursuant to the requirements of NEPA as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and according to the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures. We published a notice of availability for the draft environmental assessment in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2007 (72 FR 30326). That draft environmental assessment was based on the June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703). We have completed a revised draft environmental assessment to incorporate the proposed additions to units NC-1 and NC-4 discussed in this document, and the revised draft environmental assessment is now available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on the revised draft environmental assessment. Required Determinations—Amended In our June 12, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 33703), we said that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we revise our required determinations concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and E.O. 12630 (Takings). Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a)Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b)Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c)Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d)Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.,* as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our revised DEA of the proposed revised designation and the revised proposal of critical habitat units in this document, we provide our analysis for whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city, town, and county governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents (for example, Dare and Hyde Counties); and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities, including Dare County and Hyde County governmental entities, are significant, we considered in our economic analysis the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the wintering population of the piping plover would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat designation (including the additions to revised critical habitat proposed in this document), Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. In our revised DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities from conservation actions related to the listing of the wintering population of the piping plover and proposed revised designation of the species' critical habitat. This analysis estimated prospective economic impacts due to the implementation of wintering piping plover conservation efforts in two categories: Recreation (particularly ORV use), and section 7 consultation undertaken by the NPS, the Service, and the State of North Carolina. We anticipate that impacts of conservation activities will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the costs of consultation are borne entirely by the NPS, the Service, and the State of North Carolina. The only impacts we expect small entities to bear are the costs associated with lost consumer surplus and lost trip expenditures. Lost trips would impact generated visitor expenditures on such items as food, lodging, shopping, transportation, entertainment, and recreation. See “Draft Economic Analysis” section above and the revised DEA for a more detailed discussion of estimated discounted impacts. Approximately 93 percent of businesses in affected industry sectors in both counties are small. Assuming that all expenditures are lost only by small businesses and that these expenditures are distributed equally across all small businesses in both counties, each small business may experience a reduction in annual sales of between $661 and $6,494, depending on a business' industry. Specifically, the entertainment industry may expect a loss of $661 if no trips are lost and $992 if trips are lost. The food industry may expect a loss of $808 and $1,213 for no trips lost and trips lost, respectively. The shopping industry may expect a loss of $1,383 and $2,077, and lodging may expect a loss of $3,660 to $5,495, for no trips lost and trips lost, respectively. The transportation industry may expect a loss of $4,325 if no trips are lost and $6,494 if trips are lost. If the small business is generating annual sales just under the SBA small business threshold for its industry, this loss represents between 0.01 and 0.08 percent of its annual sales (0.01 to 0.03 percent for food, shopping, and entertainment; 0.05 to 0.08 percent for transportation and lodging). The Service concludes that this is not a significant economic impact. Assuming that each small business has annual sales just under its SBA industry small business threshold may underestimate lost expenditures as a percentage of annual sales. It is likely that most small businesses have annual sales well below the threshold. However, even if a business has annual sales below the small business threshold for its particular industry, it is probable that lost expenditures still are relatively small compared to annual sales. For example, if a small business has annual sales that are one-tenth of that industry's SBA small business threshold, potential losses still only represent between 0.10 and 0.85 percent of its annual sales. In summary, we have considered whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to no regulatory action. The revised DEA finds none of these criteria relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the revised DEA, we do not expect designation of the proposed revised critical habitat to lead to energy-related impacts. As such, we do not expect the proposed revised designation of critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), we make the following findings:
(a)This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except as
(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or
(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
(b)As discussed in the revised draft economic analysis of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only Federal and State lands are proposed for designation. The SBA does not consider the Federal or State Government to be a small governmental jurisdiction or entity. As such, it is unlikely that small governments will be involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for the wintering population of the piping plover within their jurisdictional areas. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for this species would significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Takings In accordance with E.O. 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing revised critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover. Our takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina does not pose significant taking implications. Author The primary author of this notice is the Raleigh Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 71 FR 33703, June 12, 2006, as follows: PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 2. The critical habitat entry for “Piping Plover ( *Charadrius melodus* ) Wintering Habitat” in § 17.95(b), which was proposed to be revised on June 12, 2006, at 71 FR 33703, is proposed to be amended by: a. Revising the critical habitat description for Unit NC-1 to read as set forth below; b. Revising the critical habitat description for Unit NC-4 to read as set forth below; c. Revising the first map for “North Carolina Unit: 1” as set forth below; and d. Revising the second map for “North Carolina Units: 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6” as set forth below. § 17.95 Critical habitat —fish and wildlife.
(b)*Birds.* Piping Plover ( *Charadrius melodus* ) Wintering Habitat 3. * * * Unit NC-1: Oregon Inlet, 196 ha (485 ac) in Dare County, North Carolina This unit extends from the southern portion of Bodie Island through Oregon Inlet to the northern portion of Pea Island. It begins at the edge of Ramp 4 near the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center on Bodie Island and extends south approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi) to the intersection of NC Highway 12 and Salt Flats Wildlife Trail (near Mile Marker 30, NC Highway 12), approximately 4.8 km (2.9 mi) from the groin, on Pea Island. The unit is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and Pamlico Sound on the west and includes lands from the mean lower low water
(MLLW)on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat (which is not used by piping plovers and where primary constituent elements do not occur) and from the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side to the line of stable, densely vegetated habitat, or (where a line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat does not exist) lands from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side. Any emergent sandbars south and west of Oregon Inlet, including Green Island and lands owned by the State of North Carolina such as Islands DR-005-05 and DR-005-06, are included (but are not shown on map). This unit does not include the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center, NC Highway 12 and the Bonner Bridge or its associated structures, the terminal groin, the historic Pea Island Life-Saving Station, or any of their ancillary facilities (e.g., parking lots, out buildings). Unit NC-4: Hatteras Inlet, 166 ha (410 ac) in Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina This unit extends from the western end of Hatteras Island to the eastern end of Ocracoke Island. The unit extends approximately 7.6 km (4.7 mi) southwest from the first beach access point at the edge of Ramp 55 at the end of NC Highway 12 near the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum on the western end of Hatteras Island to the edge of the beach access at the ocean-side parking lot (approximately 0.1 mi south of Ramp 59) on NC Highway 12, approximately 1.25 km (0.78 mi) southwest (straight-line distance) of the ferry terminal on the northeastern end of Ocracoke Island. The unit includes lands from the MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat (which is not used by the piping plover and where primary constituent elements do not occur) and from the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side to the line of stable, densely vegetated habitat, or (where a line of stable, densely vegetated dune habitat does not exist) lands from MLLW on the Atlantic Ocean shoreline to the MLLW on the Pamlico Sound side. All emergent sandbars within Hatteras Inlet between Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, including lands owned by the State of North Carolina such as Island DR-009-03/04 (not shown on map), are included. The unit is adjacent to but does not include the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, the ferry terminal, the groin on Ocracoke Island, NC Highway 12, or their ancillary facilities (e.g., parking lots, out buildings). BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP15MY08.000 EP15MY08.001 Dated: May 7, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-10887 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-C DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0037; 92220-1113-0000-C5] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petition To Delist the Hualapai Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Hualapai Mexican vole ( *Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis* ) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting this mammal may be warranted. We are initiating a status review to determine if delisting this subspecies is warranted. We are requesting submission of any information on the Hualapai Mexican vole relevant to its listing status under the Act. Following this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition. DATES: This finding was made on May 15, 2008. To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and materials to us by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket FWS-R2-ES-2008-0037, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited section below for more information). You may obtain copies of the petition, reports, and reviews of reports upon which this 90-day finding is based by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* or our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/* , or by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office at the address or contact numbers under ADDRESSES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office; by telephone at 602/242-0210; or by facsimile at 602/242-2513. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition. To the maximum extent practicable, we must make this finding within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and publish the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our review of a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. “Substantial information” is defined in section 424.14(b) of our regulations as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.” Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned action is warranted to support a “substantial” finding; instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition. We have to satisfy the Act's requirement that we use the best available science to make our decisions. However, we do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to rigorous critical review. Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information, to the extent that they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles (such as citing published and peer reviewed articles, or studies done in accordance with valid methodologies), unless we have specific information to the contrary. Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case on its face that delisting may be warranted. Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should no longer be classified as a threatened species. We make no determinations as to the value, accuracy, completeness, or veracity of the petition. The contents of this finding summarize that information that was available to us at the time of the petition review. In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioner and information available in our files at the time we reviewed the petition, and we evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information contained in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. On August 23, 2004, we received a petition dated August 18, 2004, from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD 2004) to delist the Hualapai Mexican vole ( *Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis* ). The petition (AGFD 2004, pp. 4-6) states that:
(1)The subspecies occurs over a much greater area and in higher numbers than previously thought;
(2)it is likely that all populations referred to as *M. m. hualpaiensis* , along with other populations of the species in Arizona, should be referred to as *M. m. mogollonensis* ; and
(3)the threats faced by this more widespread taxon do not indicate that listing under the Act is warranted. Species Information The Mexican vole is a cinnamon-brown, mouse-sized rodent approximately 5.5 inches (14 cm) long with a short tail and small ears that are obscured by its fur (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 441; 52 FR 36776, October 1, 1987). Goldman (1938, pp. 493-494) described and named the Hualapai Mexican vole (also known as the Hualapai vole) as *Microtus mexicanus hualapaiensis* in 1938. This was based on only four specimens, but Cockrum (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444-445) all recognized the subspecies. * M. m. hualpaiensis * has been considered one of three subspecies of *M. mexicanus* found in Arizona (Kime *et al.* 1995, p. 1). It was distinguished from *M. m. navaho* to the northeast by a slightly longer body, longer tail, and longer and broader skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). It was distinguished from *M. m. mogollonensis* by a longer body, shorter tail, and a longer and narrower skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). The final rule listing *M. m. hualpaiensis* (52 FR 36776) indicated that this subspecies occupied the Hualapai Mountains, but also acknowledged that Spicer *et al.* (1985, p. 10) noted similar voles from the Music Mountains and that Hoffmeister (1986, p. 445) had tentatively assigned specimens from Prospect Valley to *M. m. hualpaiensis* . The rule stated that if future taxonomic evaluation of voles from the Music Mountains and Prospect Valley should indicate that they are *M. m. hualpaiensis* , the voles from the Music Mountains and Prospect Valley would be covered by the listing of the subspecies. At the time of Federal listing, little was known about the life history of the Hualapai Mexican vole, but it was assumed to be similar to the other two *M. mexicanus* subspecies (Service 1991, p. 1). Hualapai Mexican voles are probably active year-round, as are other *Microtus* species (Spicer *et al.* 1985, p. 22). It is assumed they have small litters, similar to the other two subspecies, as they have only two pairs of mammae (mammary glands), which limits the number of young that can be nursed (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). Mexican voles are typically found in xeric
(dry)habitats, unlike most *Microtus* species, which are associated with mesic (intermediate moisture) habitats (Tamarin 1985, p. 99). A recovery plan for the Hualapai Mexican vole was completed and signed in August 1991. It outlined recovery objectives and has directed management and research priorities for the ensuing years. Recent Taxonomy Following Federal listing of the Hualapai Mexican vole, several focused surveys of the subspecies' distribution, habitat requirements, and genetic relationship to other *M. mexicanus* subspecies were undertaken. The petition reviews the taxonomic history of the Hualapai Mexican vole and recent genetic studies that have a bearing on its taxonomic status and concludes that only one subspecies of *M. mexicanus* should be recognized in Arizona. We briefly describe the petition's interpretations of these genetic studies below. Researchers did not collect or analyze samples from the exact same locations, so site names across studies do not necessarily match. We have presented site names and resulting population assignments as described in the petition and studies cited in the petition. As a point of clarification, Frey and LaRue (1993, p. 176) asserted that Mexican voles from Mexico are distinct from populations in the United States based on genetic and morphologic data. They assigned voles in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas that were formerly named *M. mexicanus* to *M. mogollonensis* (Frey and LaRue 1993, pp. 176-177). Because the Service did not formally change the scientific name of the Hualapai Mexican vole, we continue to use the name *M. mexicanus* in this finding. The petition states that in 1993, Frey and Yates conducted a genetic analysis on tissue samples from 12 populations (AGFD 2004, p. 2); there was an additional population from Mexico (Frey and Yates 1995, p. 9) not mentioned in the petition. According to the petition (AGFD 2004, pp. 2-3), the results showed that three populations (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, and Music Mountains) were genetically distinct from other populations in Arizona and indicated that all three populations might be placed in the subspecies *M. m. hualpaiensis* . The petition noted that Frey and Yates
(1993)stipulated that additional analyses including larger sample sizes might substantiate their findings. The petition states that Frey and Yates
(1995)continued their work on the three Arizona subspecies and found that six of the populations sampled (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Music Mountains, Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa Maria Mountains, and Bradshaw Mountains) could be placed in the subspecies *M. m. hualpaiensis* (AGFD 2004, p. 3). In fact, Frey and Yates (1995, p. 9) treated the Aubrey Cliffs and Chino Wash populations as two distinct populations, bringing the number of *M. m. hualpaiensis* populations to seven. They also believed that two other populations (Round Mountain and Sierra Prieta) could be placed in the subspecies *M. m. hualpaiensis* , based on geographic proximity (AGFD 2004, p. 3). Additional genetic analyses were conducted by Busch *et al.* (2001). According to the petition (AGFD 2004, p. 3), they assessed the evolutionary relatedness of 11 of the 16 populations that Frey and Yates reported on in 1995. In addition, they analyzed samples taken from specimens in two other areas (Watson Woods and Navajo Mountain). The petition states that their results did not support separation of *M. mexicanus* in Arizona into three distinct subspecies. Populations assigned to *M. m. navajo* from Navajo Mountain, Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, and the Grand Canyon South Rim, and populations assigned to *M. m. mogollonensis* from the Mogollon Rim, Chuska Mountains, and White Mountains were not differentiated from those from the Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs, Bradshaw Mountains, Watson Woods, and Sierra Prieta (AGFD 2004, p. 3; Busch *et al.* 2001, p. 2). The petition states that the authors believed the specimens from the White Mountains and Chuska Mountains could be considered a different subspecies, or they may simply show some genetic difference due to geographic separation (AGFD 2004, p. 3; Busch *et al.* 2001, p. 11-12). According to Busch *et al.* (2001, p. 12) and acknowledged by the petitioner, there is only one subspecies of *M. mexicanus* in Arizona. The petition included reviews by five experts familiar with genetic research who analyzed the Busch *et al.*
(2001)report. According to the petition (AGFD 2004, pp. 3-4), one reviewer believed the data collected from Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, Bradshaw Mountains/Watson Woods, and Sierra Prieta represented five populations of *M. m. hualpaiensis.* Conversely, the reviewer concluded that the data from three sites (Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, and Grand Canyon South Rim) represented a different subspecies ( *M. m. navaho* ). The reviewer also suggested that the populations found in the Music Mountains and the Santa Maria Mountains were likely *M. m. hualpaiensis* based on “less well-supported morphologic, genetic, and biogeographic data,” for a total of seven populations. This reviewer did not include a discussion of *M. m. mogollonensis* and the validity of that subspecies. The petition states that the other four reviewers concurred overall with the conclusions in Busch *et al.*
(2001)that all populations sampled could be assigned to *M. m. hualpaiensis* (AGFD 2004, p. 4). Additionally, AGFD sent Busch *et al.* 's 2001 report to two different experts on mammalian taxonomy. The petition states that one of the taxonomic reviewers agreed with the dissenting genetic review discussed in the preceding paragraph that there are sufficient data to support distinguishing more than one subspecies (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The reviewer concurred with the geneticist's population assignments of the subspecies. The petition states that the other taxonomic reviewer concluded that there is no basis to consider the three subspecies separate, that the reviewer stated that data used by Hoffmeister
(1986)were insufficient to recognize three subspecies, and the genetic analyses (DNA and isozyme) (Frey and Yates 1993; 1995; Busch *et al.* 2001) were subject to methodological problems (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The reviewer asserted that all three subspecies should be considered as one, *M. m. mogollonensis.* In summary, the various analyses and reviews present multiple interpretations of the taxonomy and distribution of voles in Arizona, none of which match that of our original listing. Although we are unable to ascertain the correct interpretation at this time, we believe the petitioner has presented reliable and accurate information indicating
(1)That the Hualapai Mexican vole, as currently listed, may not be a valid taxonomic entity; and
(2)that if the Hualapai Mexican vole is a valid taxon, it likely occurs throughout a greater range than originally thought. Status Assessment Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we may list or delist a species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment of vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the following five factors:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. If it is determined that the Hualapai Mexican vole is a valid taxon occurring throughout a larger range, a new status review, based on a review of the five listing factors, would be required in order to determine if the Hualapai Mexican vole still meets the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act. This 90-day finding is not a status assessment and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Therefore, what follows below is a preliminary review of the factors affecting this subspecies, as presented by the petitioner. Please note that the petitioner addressed the subspecies as though it occurs in a larger range than what is currently recognized. Because we only monitor populations of Hualapai Mexican vole that occur within the Hualapai Mountains, as described in the listing rule, we have very limited information in our files with which to draw conclusions regarding potential populations outside the Hualapai Mountains. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range The final rule listing the subspecies considered the Hualapai Mexican vole to be extremely rare, with one of the most limited habitats of any North American mammal (52 FR 36776). The habitat was considered in danger of further degradation by cattle grazing and increased human recreational activities. The petition asserts that the subspecies occurs over a much greater area and in higher numbers than previously thought (AGFD 2004, pp. 2-6; see Recent Taxonomy discussion above). Therefore, loss of limited habitat should no longer be considered a threat to the subspecies. In addition, the petitioner asserts that the Hualapai Mexican vole is found in more xeric habitats than most Microtus species (AGFD 2004, p. 5); therefore, trampling of spring areas by cattle will not negatively affect the subspecies as intensely as it was thought when the subspecies was listed. The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it was listed. There is not enough information in our files to assess the reliability of information in the petition; therefore, we assume it is reliable. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes While the Hualapai Mexican vole is not sought for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes, persecuted as a pest, or collected for the pet trade, the final rule listing the species indicated that an intensive trapping effort could eliminate a population (52 FR 36773). The petition notes that collecting of the Hualapai Mexican vole has historically been done for genetic analyses and comparison of morphological measurements and that, historically, the number of individuals taken was small relative to the number captured (AGFD 2004, p. 6). Genetic analyses may continue, but will be monitored through scientific collection permits authorized by the petitioner, AGFD. The petitioner does not believe that this factor rises to the level of a threat. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes was not presented as a threat in the final listing rule, and we have not received any reports of overutilization of Hualapai Mexican voles in the Hualapai Mountains since the listing of the subspecies. We have no information in our files to indicate that the petitioner's information is unreliable or inaccurate. C. Disease or Predation The final rule listing the Hualapai Mexican vole states that little is known about disease or predation in Hualapai Mexican vole populations (52 FR 36778). However, species of *Microtus* are usually a fundamental part of the base of the food pyramid, and many potential predators occur in the Hualapai Mountains. Additionally, domestic cats may pose a threat from the expanding residential area near Hualapai Mountain Park. The petitioner notes that predation is not known to be a problem, especially if the range of the subspecies is not limited to the Hualapai Mountains (AGFD 2004, p. 6). Additionally, the petitioner notes that domestic cats have rarely been observed in Hualapai Mountain Park and, therefore, believes the threat of predation on Hualapai Mexican voles is overstated in the listing rule. However, the petitioner provides no information to support these assertions. Although domestic cats have been mentioned as a threat (Spicer 1985, p. 28), we have no information to suggest these cats represent a significant predation threat to the Hualapai Mexican vole. Therefore, we assume that the petitioner's information is reliable. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition states that the removal of Federal protections afforded by the Act will not negatively affect Hualapai Mexican vole populations, since the species' range and habitat requirements are not as restricted as previously thought (AGFD 2004, p. 6). The petition also recognizes that Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 14 prohibits hunting or trapping of Hualapai Mexican voles. Arizona Revised Statute (i.e., State Law) allows for the Commission to issue orders regarding the hunting and trapping of wildlife in Arizona. Also, since the petitioner, AGFD, has authority over scientific collection permits, it can approve or deny permits based on submitted research proposals (AGFD 2004, pp. 6-7). The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it is listed. We do not have any information in our files to indicate that a lack of regulatory mechanisms could be a problem. Therefore, we assume that the petitioner's information is reliable. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The final rule listing the Hualapai Mexican vole notes that the areas of habitat supporting the subspecies are small and isolated (52 FR 36778). This mammal is thus fragmented into small populations that may be subject to inbreeding and reduced genetic variability. Drought, which can reduce water flow, vegetation growth, and ground cover, is an additional threat to these populations (52 FR 36778). The petition asserts that because the Hualapai Mexican vole's range is not as restricted as once thought, manmade factors should not negatively influence the continued existence of the species (AGFD 2004, p. 7). Additionally, the petitioner states that drought is not a serious threat to Hualapai Mexican vole populations, because the normal and regular occurrence of drought probably allowed this vole to adapt to drier habitat conditions (AGFD 2004, p. 7). The petitioner also suggested that prescribed fire might improve or expand the habitat of the species (AGFD 2004, p. 7). The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it is listed. The apparent continued presence of the vole in those mountains (Kime *et al.* 1995, p. 6) suggests that drought may not be as great a threat as was thought at the time of listing. We did not address prescribed fire as a manmade factor in our listing rule. There is not enough information in our files to draw conclusions regarding the effects of drought or prescribed burns on additional populations; however, we have no information to indicate that the petitioner's information is unreliable or inaccurate. Therefore, we assumed the petitioner's information is reliable. Finding We have reviewed the petition and the supporting documents, as well as other information in our files. We find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting the Hualapai Mexican vole may be warranted. The petitioner has provided information suggesting the taxon may occur over a greater range of the State than known at the time of listing, and may not even warrant taxonomic standing as a subspecies. As discussed above, given the limited information in our files regarding these issues, we assume that the information presented in the petition is reliable. If reliable, that information is adequate to demonstrate that delisting may be warranted. While significant questions remain about the taxonomy of the species and threats facing the additional populations of voles, we consider these questions to be issues relevant to the listing determination that warrant further investigation. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to consider this information and any other new information available about this species, and the threats it may face, in a status review. Public Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information to indicate that delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. Based on results of the status review, we make a 12-month finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific information, we are soliciting information on *M. mexicanus* in Arizona. This includes information regarding historical and current distribution, taxonomic status, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to the species and its habitat. This information is particularly needed for any populations of the taxon that were not among the three potential populations considered to be *M. m. hualapaiensis* in the 1987 final listing. We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental entities, or any other interested parties concerning the status of *M. mexicanus* in Arizona. We are particularly interested in the views of scientists with expertise in mammalian taxonomy and the use of genetic data when making taxonomic determinations of species and subspecies. In particular, we are interested in review and comment on whether the information such as the original morphological evidence and new genetic reports support or refute the taxonomic validity of *M. m. hualapaiensis.* If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding. You may submit your comments and materials concerning the taxonomic and listing status of *M. m. hualapaiensis* by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comments must include your first and last name, city, State , country, and postal
(zip)code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. Comments submitted via *http://www.regulations.gov* must be submitted before midnight (Eastern Standard Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov.* If you provide personal identifying information in addition to the required items specified on the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242-0210). References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this finding is available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242-0210). Authority The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 2, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-10906 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 95 Thursday, May 15, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Medora Ranger District; North Dakota; North Billings County Range Allotment Management Plan Revisions AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Medora Ranger District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, proposes to continue grazing on 48 allotments in a manner consistent with direction set forth in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (Grasslands Plan) and applicable laws. The ETS will lay the groundwork for revising the Allotment Management Plans
(AMPs)for the 48 allotments. Site-specific resource objectives, allowable grazing strategies, and adaptive management tools will be set forth in the EIS in order to allow managers flexibility to meet objectives. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The draft environmental impact statement is expected in August 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in December 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Ronald W. Jablonski, Jr., District Ranger, Medora Ranger District, 23 Ave W., Suite B, Dickinson, ND 58601, or e-mail your comments to *comments-northern-dakota-praire-medora@fs.fed.us* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Adams, Project Leader, or Nickole Dahl, Co-Project Leader at the Medora Ranger District, USDA Forest Service at the above address or call
(701)227-7800. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this action is to develop AMPs for permitted domestic livestock grazing using management that is consistent with the Grasslands Plan direction and to maintain, meet, or move towards desired resource conditions within a 10-20 year timeframe following the decision. There is an overall need for greater management flexibility to meet Grasslands Plan resource goals and objectives and to cope with fluctuations in environmental and social conditions including, but not limited to, annual changes in weather; to be responsive to permittee requests for reasonable operational adjustments; and to respond to unforeseen issues. Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to continue grazing on 48 allotments which are located on the Medora Ranger District in a manner consistent with direction in the Grasslands Plan and applicable laws. The proposal takes an adaptive management approach to allow flexibility for both the Forest Service and the livestock operators to manage appropriately under changing conditions. The Forest Service has developed allotment-specific desired conditions, needs, and adaptive management proposals designed to meet the overall purpose and need for the project area. Affected resources will be monitored to determine whether they are moving toward, meeting or maintaining desired conditions. If desired conditions are not being met, or measureable progress is not being made toward them, then adaptive management practices will be employed. Possible Alternatives Alternatives in addition to the proposed action include: • A No Action alternative, which would exclude all domestic livestock grazing. • A current management alternative, which would continue grazing as currently authorized. • An adaptive management alternative that accounts for changes in animal unit forage demands based on changes in cow/calf size. • An adaptive management alternative which considers actions that can be implemented to maintain or improve resource conditions including adjusting authorized use based on estimated livestock carrying capacities and changes in animal unit forage demands based on cow/calf size. Other alternatives may be developed in response to comments. Responsible Official Ronald W. Jablonski, Jr., Medora District Ranger is the responsible official. See address under the ADDRESSES section above. Nature of Decision To Be Made The District Ranger will decide, whether to implement specific changes in grazing management to meet desired conditions, what optional grazing strategies may be used to meet desired conditions, and what monitoring items need to be included. Scoping Process Public participation is important to this analysis. Part of the goal of public involvement is to identify additional issues and to refine general issues. Scoping notices will be mailed to the public on or before May 23, 2008. People may visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. Two periods are specifically designated for comments on the analysis:
(1)During the scoping process, and
(2)during the draft ETS period. During the scoping process, the Forest Service seeks additional information and comments from individuals, organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The Forest Service invites written comments and suggestions on this action, particularly in terms of issues and alternative development. While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Preliminary Issues Issues identified through preliminary work include: Effects of livestock grazing in woody draws, effects of livestock grazing on riparian areas, effects of livestock grazing on herbaceous structure, effects of potential management actions on the local economy, drought, species composition, and the need for a drought management strategy. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping proces which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , *490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338* (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: May 8, 2008. Ronald W. Jablonski, Jr., District Ranger. [FR Doc. E8-10732 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0205. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 15,671. *Number of Respondents:* 16,820. *Average Hours per Response:* The new information is included in a permit form, at no additional burden. *Needs and Uses:* The participants in the federally-regulated fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean are required to obtain federal permits under the existing permit program for the specific Fishery Management Plans of each region. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) needs information from the applications and associated data collections to identify fishing vessels/dealers/participants, properly manage the fisheries, and generate fishery-specific data. Additional information to be collected is crew size and percentage of ownership. The need to collect percentage of ownership in a corporation from permit holders is necessary information for the red snapper Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)program. The IFQ program has a cap on share percent ownership of six percent. Without the ability to track corporate shareholder information, NOAA Fisheries Service will be unable to enforce this share ownership cap. The crew size information is being collected to better understand the nature of the fishery and the number of participants who are not permit holders. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: May 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10852 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Southeast Region Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0551. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,038 total (24 from revision). *Number of Respondents:* 1,417. *Average Hours per Response:* 1 minute. *Needs and Uses:* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) manages the red snapper fishery in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)program was implemented to reduce the overcapacity in the fishery and end the derby fishing conditions that resulted from that overcapitalization. As part of this program, the Southeast Regional Office needs to collect percentage of ownership in a corporation from IFQ participants. The IFQ program has a cap on share percent of ownership of six percent. This revision is intended to allow NOAA Fisheries Service to collect important corporate ownership information to ensure that the share ownership cap in the IFQ program is not violated. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* One-time only. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: May 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10853 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). *Title:* Evacuation Movement and Behavior Questionnaires. *OMB Control Number:* None. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 1,111. *Number of Respondents:* 6,666. *Average Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The data will be collected via questionnaires on occupant behavior during regularly scheduled evacuation drills from high-rise buildings (varying heights, 1-10 stories, 11-20 stories, 21-35 stories, and 35+ stories) across the United States. The occupant behavioral information is to ascertain the occupants' knowledge of the procedure, awareness of the event, and behavior during the evacuation. This data will be used to improve egress designs for buildings, safety assessment models, and occupant training and education about what to do in an emergency. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,
(202)395-3123. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-5806 or via the Internet at *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: May 12, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10854 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-552-801) Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued its preliminary results for the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 46604 (August 21, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The current deadline for the final results of this review is May 6, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results In our *Preliminary Results* , we indicated we would issue the final results in the instant review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated. However, it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period. Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), we are extending the time limit by 60 days. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time frame. Subsequent to the *Preliminary Results* , and receipt of Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd./Corp.'s and Petitioners' (the Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors) case briefs, the Department requested and received new information from Vinh Hoan on which the Department intends to provide interested parties an opportunity to comment. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results in the instant review by 60 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than July 5, 2008. As July 5, 2008, falls on a Saturday, our final results will be issued no later than Monday July 7, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with section 771(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: May 6, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10902 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-820) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, covering the period December 1, 2005, to November 30, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). On December 31, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 74267 (December 31, 2007). On April 7, 2008, the Department partially extended the time limit for the final results of this review. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 18753 (April 7, 2008). The final results of this review are currently due no later than May 14, 2008. Extension for Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. *See also* 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the current time limit. Interested parties to this review submitted extensive comments and rebuttal comments on the preliminary results of this review, requiring substantial analysis by the Department. Thus, the Department is extending the final results by an additional 16 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to allow sufficient time to thoroughly analyze interested parties' case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The final results are now due no later than May 30, 2008. This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 9, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10905 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-549-817) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 27, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Thailand. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters: G Steel Public Company Limited (G Steel) and Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Company Limited (NSM). The period of review
(POR)is November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. Based on requests from United States Steel Corporation (petitioner) and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), we are now rescinding this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0193 or
(202)482-9013, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand for the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 61859 (November 1, 2007). On November 30, 2007, petitioner, a domestic producer of the subject merchandise, and Nucor made timely requests that the Department conduct an administrative review of G Steel and NSM. On December 27, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 73315 (December 27, 2007). On January 2, 2008, both G Steel and NSM submitted a letter to the Department certifying that the companies made no shipments or entries for consumption in the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR and requested that the Department rescind their respective administrative reviews. On February 15, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum to the file detailing our request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)for import data for G Steel and NSM during the POR. *See* Memorandum to the File titled, “G Steel Public Company Limited and Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Company Limited - No Shipments of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand Pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Inquiry,” from Dena Crossland, Analyst, dated February 15, 2008 (CBP Memo). The Department explained in the CBP Memo that it received no reply from CBP regarding our request for shipment and entry information, and the Department preliminarily determined that neither company had shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On March 11, 2008, both petitioner and Nucor submitted letters requesting that the Department rescind the administrative review with respect to both G Steel and NSM. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Review The products covered by this antidumping duty review are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *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 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Rescission of the Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Because petitioner and Nucor submitted their requests to rescind the administrative review of G Steel and NSM within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this rescission of administrative review. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: May 8, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10904 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH73 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings; Cancellation AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public hearings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is cancelling the previously published public hearing on Aquaculture Amendment scheduled on Wednesday, May 28, 2008. The Council will publish a **Federal Register** notice when dates for this hearing are set. DATES: The public hearing scheduled to convene at 6 pm on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 and conclude no later than 9 pm has been cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Swingle, Executive Director; telephone: 813-348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice published in the **Federal Register** on May 12, 2008 (73 FR 26963). All other information contained in the original notice remains unchanged. Copies of the Amendment can be obtained by calling the Council office at 813-348-1630. Dated: May 12, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10867 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH95 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day Council meeting on June 3-5, 2008 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 3 beginning at 9 a.m., and Wednesday and Thursday, June 4 and 5, beginning at 8:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone (207)775-2311. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone
(978)465-0492. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council,
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 Following introductions and any announcements, the Council will receive a series of brief reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel, NOAA Enforcement and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council also will review any experimental fishery permits requests published since the last Council meeting and possibly offer comments. Dr. William Overholtz from NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center will then present a report titled An Ecosystem Approach to the Assessment of the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Herring Complex. Following a lunch break, the Council's Skate Committee intends to approve final management measures and alternatives for purposes of inclusion and analyses in Amendment 3 to the Skate Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)and it's associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The day will end with action on the Council's Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology Amendment. Members will review and approve, with modifications as necessary, staff recommendations for observer coverage levels for NEFMC-managed fisheries. Wednesday, June 4, 2008 The Council will receive reports on results of the April 2008 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting on biological reference points for species managed through the Council's Northeast Multispecies FMP and a Gulf of Maine Research Institute-funded project to evaluate monitoring and reporting needs that would allow for effective tracking of catch by “sector” vessels in New England. Prior to a lunch break, the Council's Groundfish Committee will review and ask for approval of management measures along with the identification of preferred alternatives for Draft Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) FMP for purposes of analyses and to solicit comments from the public. This agenda item will be discussed until the Council meeting adjourns for the day. Thursday, June 5, 2008 The Council will address scoping comments on Amendment 15 to the Sea Scallop FMP. The Scallop Committee Chairman also will provide the Council with a brief overview of the recent Sea Scallop Advisory Panel meeting concerning scallop survey calibration research and activities to evaluate optical/acoustic survey technologies. The Habitat Committee will describe its draft Risk Assessment on the Adverse Impacts of Fishing on Essential Fisher Habitat to the Council. This will be followed by two presentations from the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries: 1) a review of the agency's proposed rule to integrate National Environmental Policy Act requirements with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for fishery management plans; and 2) a review of the agency's proposed rule to address guidelines for annual catch limits and accountability measures in fishery management plans. NMFS Northeast Regional Office staff will provide the Council with an update on possible changes to the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan; and the Council's Research Steering Committee will report on recently reviewed habitat and a number of other cooperative research projects. The agenda will conclude with a report on the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary's 2008 Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. 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 that 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 (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: May 12, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10846 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 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 12, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Federal Family Education Loan
(FFEL)Program, Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program Discharge Application: Total and Permanent Disability. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 30,000. *Burden Hours:* 15,000. *Abstract: The Discharge Application:* Total and Permanent Disability serves as the means by which an individual who is totally and permanently disabled (in accordance with the U.S. Department of Education's regulations) applies for a discharge or his or her student loans made under the FFEL, Perkins Loan, or Direct Loan program loans, and TEACH Grant service obligation. 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 3687. 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. E8-10925 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: May 9, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* FRSS Educational Technology in Public School Districts. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 1,550. *Burden Hours:* 775. *Abstract:* This fast response survey will collect information from a sample of 1,550 public school districts. It will provide national data on technology access and use. The survey will cover topics such as technology infrastructure, treatment of older computers, district policies on acceptable uses of technologies, teacher professional development, resources provided to schools and teachers, and respondent perceptions about technology use in the district. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3680. 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. E8-10926 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 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 9, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Annual Progress Reporting Form for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Program. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 73. *Burden Hours:* 1,022. *Abstract:* This data collection will be conducted annually to obtain program and performance information from the AIVRS grantees on their project activities. The information collected will assist federal Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)staff in responding to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Data will primarily be collected through an Internet form. 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 3686. 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. E8-10927 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 May 7, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-78-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Cinergy Corp., Cinergy Power Investments, Inc., Generating Facility LLCs. *Description:* Amendment to Application and Request for Extended Notice Period for Comments of Cinergy Corp., *et.al.* *Filed Date:* 05/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-5107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-85-000. *Applicants:* Mountain View Power Partners, LLC; AES Western Wind MV Acquisition, LLC. *Description:* Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Confidential Treatment, and Request for Expedited Action of Mountain View Power Partners, LLC, *et. al* . *Filed Date:* 05/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-5007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 26, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-70-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Energy Massachusetts, LLC. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Energy Massachusetts, LLC submits a Notice of Name Change and Application for Redetermination of Status as an Exempt Wholesale Generator. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0138. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER93-465-043; ER96-417-012; ER96-1375-013; OA96-39-020; OA97-245-013. *Applicants:* Florida Power & Light Company. *Description:* Refund Report Errata of Florida Power & Light Company. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-5032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-2801-022. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits a revised Sheet to its market-based rate tariff currently on file with FERC. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0229. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1215-003; ER07-265-001; ER08-100-001. *Applicants:* The Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; Sempra Energy Trading LLC. *Description:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC et al. submits a notice of non-material change in status and compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-5-001. *Applicants:* Ohio Valley Electric Corporation. *Description:* Ohio Valley Electric Corp submits an executed Interconnection Agreement with U.S. Department of Energy. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-569-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC responds to FERC's request for additional information re its 5/15/08 deficient filing. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-638-001. *Applicants:* Crafton LLC. *Description:* Crafton LLC submits Amended Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 03/31/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080401-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-671-001. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Florida Power Corp submits correction filing for Gainesville service agreement under cost-based rates tariff CR-1. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-747-001. *Applicants:* Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC. *Description:* Beaver Ridge Wind, LLC submits an amendment to the Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 05/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080507-0212. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-884-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc et al. submits proposed revisions to the Congestion Management Process. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-885-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. *Description:* Entergy Gulf States Louisiana LLC submits Attachment A Notice of Termination. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-886-000. *Applicants:* The Detroit Edison Company. *Description:* The Detroit Edison Co submits copies of the Third Revised Sheets 26, 33 and 36 of the Ancillary Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-887-000. *Applicants:* Interstate Power & Light Company. *Description:* Interstate Power and Light Company submits proposed revisions to their RES-5 Wholesale Formula Rates. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-888-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company. *Description:* Progress Energy Carolinas Inc submits amendments to the North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency's Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement & a Notice of Cancellation, etc. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-889-000. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company. *Description:* Carolina Power and Light Co submits revised tariff sheets for the transmission rates under its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-890-000. *Applicants:* Louisiana Generating, LLC. *Description:* Louisiana Generating LLC submits a Balancing Authority Area Agreement, Rate Schedule FERC 6 with Cottonwood Energy Company LP. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-891-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Power and Light Company. *Description:* Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc on behalf of Wisconsin Power and Light Co submits a Wholesale Power Agreement. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-892-000. *Applicants:* Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC. *Description:* Allegheny Energy Supply Co, LLC submits notices of cancellation and notices of termination. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0118. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-893-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Service Corp. submits an Interconnection Agreement with Indianapolis Power & Light Co. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-894-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc submits mutually-executed Dynamic Transfer Operating Agreements. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-895-000. *Applicants:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York. *Description:* Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits a Construction and Operating Agreement with New Athens Generating Company, LLC dated as of 7/9/07. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-896-000. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities Service Co submits amendments to its new Localized Costs Responsibility Agreements. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-898-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among the Blythe Energy, LL, SCE, and the California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-899-000. *Applicants:* Ohio Power Company. *Description:* Ohio Power Company submits a Cost-Based Formula Rate Agreement for Full Requirements Electric Service dated 4/30/08 with the American Electric Power Company. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0077. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-901-000. *Applicants:* Saracen Energy Partners, LP. *Description:* Saracen Energy Partners, LP submits its Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authorization of FERC Rate Schedule 1. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-902-000. *Applicants:* Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Vermont Electric Coop, Inc.'s 2008 Transmission Formula Rate Update to charges produced by the formula rates applicable to the VEC-specified Local Service Schedules of the ISO New England Open Access Transmission Tariff, etc. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-903-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Empire District Electric Co. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-904-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Kansas Electric Power Coop, Inc. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-905-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-906-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison submits Fifth Revised Sheet 54, et al. to Rate Schedule FERC 424. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-907-000. *Applicants:* Unitil Power Corp. *Description:* Unitil Power Corp. submits an Amended Unitil System Agreement. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-908-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power Corporation. *Description:* Progress Energy Florida Inc's CD containing their annual cost factor updates. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-4003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-913-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., et al. submits proposed revisions to Section 4.1 and 4.4 of the Congestion Management Process of their Joint Operating Agreement, etc. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-914-000. *Applicants:* Walnut Creek Energy, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Walnut Creek Energy, LLC for authorization for affiliate sales of electric energy. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-922-000. *Applicants:* Warren Power, LLC. *Description:* Warren Power, LLC submits a notice of cancellation of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, etc. *Filed Date:* 05/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080507-0221. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-49-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Power, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Power, Inc. submits its Application for Authorization to Issue Securities Pursuant to Section 204 Federal Power Act and Part 34 of the Commission's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-5026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-40-003. *Applicants:* Portland General Electric Company. *Description:* Amendment to Application of Portland General Electric Company to correct effective dates on three tariff sheets. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-5126. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-55-001. *Applicants:* Black Hills Power, Inc.; Powder River Energy Corp; Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Compliance Filing of Black Hills Power, Inc., et al. *Filed Date:* 05/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-5029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-56-002. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits revised and original tariff sheets in compliance with the Order No. 890 requirements dated April 3, 2008. *Filed Date:* 05/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080506-5025. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-85-001. *Applicants:* Ohio Valley Electric Corporation. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Attachment C Compliance Filing of Ohio Valley Electric Corporation. *Filed Date:* 05/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080502-5057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-89-001. *Applicants:* Florida Power & Light Company. *Description:* Florida Power & Light Co submits its compliance filing on Attachment C to its Open Access Transmission Tariff under OA07-89. *Filed Date:* 05/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080507-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-92-001. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Southern Company Services, Inc., Attachment C Request for Waiver. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-5200. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-96-001. *Applicants:* Idaho Power Company. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Attachment C Filing of Idaho Power Company. *Filed Date:* 05/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080501-5067. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-114-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a notification filing pursuant to Order 890 and PJM Tariff Section 19.8. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0210. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-115-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a notification filing pursuant to Order 890 and 890-A. *Filed Date:* 04/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080505-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed 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. E8-10834 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice May 8, 2008. The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b: Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Date And Time: May 15, 2008, 10 a.m. Place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: Agenda. * **Note** —Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice. Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone
(202)502-8400. For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call
(202)502-8627. This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 934th—Meeting Regular Meeting May 15, 2008, 10 a.m. Item No. Docket No. Company Administrative A-1 AD02-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD02-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD06-3-000 Energy Market Update. Electric E-1 OA08-32-000 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-2 OA08-53-000 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-3 OA08-42-000 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and American Transmission Company, LLC. E-4 OA08-41-000 MidAmerican Energy Company. E-5 OA08-58-000 ISO New England Inc. E-6 OA08-21-000 Maine Public Service Company. E-7 RC08-4-000 New Harquahala Generating Company, LLC. E-8 EL08-34-000 Maryland Public Service Commission v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. EL08-47-000 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-9 RM06-22-001 Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection. E-10 RM01-8-010 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for Electric Quarterly Reports. E-11 OMITTED E-12 ER96-2585-007 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. ER98-6-012 New England Power Company. ER99-2387-005 KeySpan-Ravenswood, Inc. ER02-1470-005 KeySpan-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC. ER02-1573-005 KeySpan-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC. ER05-1249-005 Granite State Electric Company, Massachusetts Electric Company, and The Narragansett Electric Company. EC06-125-000 National Grid plc and KeySpan Corporation. E-13 ER07-940-001 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-14 ER99-2541-009 Carthage Energy, LLC. ER05-731-003 Central Maine Power Company. ER97-3556-017 Energetix, Inc. ER04-582-007 Hartford Stream Company. ER99-221-012 New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. ER99-220-014 NYSEG Solution, Inc. ER97-3553-005 PEI Power II, LLC, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. E-15 ER96-496-016 Northeast Utilities Service Company. ER99-14-013 ER99-3658-003 Select Energy, Inc. E-16 EL08-43-000 TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd. v. ISO New England Inc. E-17 EL06-10-000 California Independent System Operator Corporation. EL06-11-000 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. E-18 TS04-286-003 Exelon Corporation. E-19 OMITTED E-20 ER07-1285-002 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. E-21 ER07-1019-003 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. ER07-1019-004 ER07-1020-004 ER07-1020-003 ER07-1021-004 ER07-1021-003 E-22 OMITTED E-23 OA08-9-000 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-24 OA08-5-000 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-25 OA07-51-000 Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. OA07-51-001 E-26 OA08-14-000 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. OA08-14-001 OA07-57-000 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. OA08-4-000 Midwest ISO Transmission Owners and Midwest Stand-Alone Transmission Companies. E-27 ER07-478-005 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-28 ER07-478-006 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-29 OA08-12-000 California Independent System Operator Corporation. E-30 EL07-102-000 Montgomery Great Falls Energy Partners LP v. NorthWestern Corporation. Miscellaneous M-1 PL08-3-000 Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations and Orders. M-2 PL08-2-000 Obtaining Guidance on Regulatory Requirements. M-3 RM08-8-000 Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions. M-4 RM08-10-000 Submissions to the Commission upon Staff Intention to Seek an Order to Show Cause. Gas G-1 IN06-3-003 Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Company, ETC Marketing Ltd., Houston Pipeline Company, Oasis Pipeline, L.P., Oasis Pipeline Company Texas, L.P., ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd., Oasis Division. G-2 RP04-98-002 Indicated Shippers v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. RP04-98-003 G-3 RP98-18-033 Iroquois Gas Transmission, L.P. G-4 GP99-15-005 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company. RP98-40-041 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company. Hydro H-1 HB73-93-15-003 Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation. Certificates C-1 OMITTED C-2 CP08-68-000 Trunkline LNG Company, LLC. C-3 CP08-54-000 Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. CP08-55-000 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. A free Webcast of this event is available through *http://www.ferc.gov.* Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to *http://www.ferc.gov* 's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free Webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *http://www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100. Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service. [FR Doc. E8-11012 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0378; FRL-8566-4] Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Budgets in Submitted South Coast 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plans for Transportation Conformity Purposes; California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy and inadequacy. SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency has found that the “baseline” reasonable further progress motor vehicle emissions budgets for 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> in the 2007 South Coast State Implementation Plan (2007 South Coast SIP), as amended on April 30, 2008, are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA is also notifying the public that the Agency has found that the “SIP-based” motor vehicle emissions budgets for 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> in the amended 2007 South Coast SIP are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The 2007 South Coast SIP was submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007 by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)as a revision to the California SIP, and includes reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> national ambient air quality standards. On February 1, 2008, CARB submitted supplemental technical information related to reasonable further progress for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2007 South Coast SIP was amended by a submittal dated April 30, 2008 that replaces the original motor vehicle emissions budgets for 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> and distinguishes between “baseline” budgets and “SIP-based” budgets. As a result of our findings, the Southern California Association of Governments and the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the South Coast 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> “baseline” motor vehicle emissions budgets, and cannot use the “SIP-based” budgets, in the amended 2007 South Coast SIP for future conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective May 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Rosen, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415)947-4152 or *rosen.rebecca@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> in the 2007 South Coast SIP submitted on November 28, 2007 was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site on February 12, 2008. Receipt of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the amended 2007 South Coast SIP was announced on March 27, 2008 based on a submittal from CARB dated March 26, 2008 that requested parallel adequacy processing of draft amendments to the 2007 South Coast SIP. The draft amendments to the 2007 South Coast SIP included two sets of budgets, and CARB labeled these sets as “baseline” and “SIP-based” budgets. CARB also requested that EPA consider both sets of budgets simultaneously but approve all of the “baseline” budgets only if the Agency could not approve or find adequate in their entirety the “SIP-based” budgets. We received comments in response to the adequacy review posting of the original 2007 South Coast SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets, and comments were also received in response to the adequacy review posting of the amended 2007 South Coast SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets. The final, adopted amendments to the 2007 South Coast SIP submitted by CARB on April 30, 2008 are the same as those submitted by CARB for parallel processing on March 26, 2008. Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to the CARB on May 7, 2008 stating that the “baseline” motor vehicle emissions budgets in the amended 2007 South Coast SIP for the reasonable further progress
(RFP)milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 (for 8-hour ozone) and 2009 and 2012 (for PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) are adequate. The adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table: Adequate 8-Hour Ozone “Baseline” Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget year 8-hour ozone—summer day, tons per day ROG NO <sup>X</sup> 2008 215 427 2011 176 354 2014 150 287 2017 131 32 2020 116 190 Adequate PM <sup>2.5</sup> “Baseline” Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Budget year PM <sup>2.5</sup> —annual average, tons per day ROG NO <sup>X</sup> PM <sup>2.5</sup> 2009 196 413 38 2012 163 337 38 Our letter dated May 7, 2008 also states that the “SIP-based” motor vehicle emissions budgets in the amended 2007 South Coast SIP are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The amended 2007 South Coast SIP included “SIP-based” budgets for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 (for ozone) and for 2009, 2012, 2014, 2023, and 2030 (for PM <sup>2.5</sup> ). The State has included additional on-road mobile source emissions reductions in the “SIP-based” budgets from the 2007 State Strategy for the California SIP. The “baseline” budgets include no such reductions but rather reflect emissions reductions from CARB rules that were adopted as of October 2006. EPA has determined that the “SIP-based” budgets are inadequate because all of the “SIP-based” budgets after 2009 include new emission reductions that do not result from specific or enforceable control measures. As a result, three of the transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria are not met (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v)) for these “SIP-based” budgets. The inadequate motor vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table: Inadequate “SIP-Based” 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget year 8-hour ozone—summer day, tons per day ROG NO <sup>X</sup> 2008 215 427 2011 162 320 2014 125 196 2017 111 167 2020 101 145 2023 93 128 Inadequate “SIP-Based” PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Budget year PM <sup>2.5</sup> —annual average, tons per day ROG NO <sup>X</sup> PM <sup>2.5</sup> 2009 196 413 38 2012 139 276 37 2014 122 201 33 2023 89 131 37 2030 75 121 39 EPA notes that the 2008 8-hour ozone and 2009 PM <sup>2.5</sup> motor vehicle emissions budgets in the state's “SIP-based” approach are the same as the adequate budgets in the state's “baseline” approach. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's transportation conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm* . Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated on August 15, 1997 final rule (62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 final rule (69 FR 40004, 40038), and we used the information in these resources in making our adequacy findings. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: May 6, 2008. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-10901 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0393; FRL-8566-7] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (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 July 31, 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-OAR-2008-0393 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* National VOC Standards for Consumer Products—Information Collection Request Renewal, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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-OAR-2008-0393. 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: Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Division (C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919)541-5460; fax number:
(919)541-3470; e-mail address: *moore.bruce@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 number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0393, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. 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. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0393. *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are those which manufacture, distribute, or import architectural and industrial maintenance coatings for sale or distribution in the United States, including the District of Columbia and all United States territories. *Title:* National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1750.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0393. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire July 31, 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, 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 information collection includes initial reports and periodic recordkeeping necessary for EPA to ensure compliance with Federal standards for volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings. Respondents are manufacturers, distributors, and importers of architectural coatings. Responses to the collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, Subpart D—National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, Subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 46 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents:* 500. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Average Number of Responses for Each Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 22,761 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $1,599,707. This includes an estimated burden cost of $1,599,707 and an estimated zero cost for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is no change in hours or annual costs in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. 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 5, 2008. Jennifer E. N. Edmonds, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-10898 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice Agency Holding the Meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 73 FR 26395, Friday, May 9, 2008. Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 10 a.m. (Eastern Time). Change in the Meeting: The meeting has been cancelled. Contact Person for More Information: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on
(202)663-4070. Dated: May 12, 2008. Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. [FR Doc. 08-1268 Filed 5-13-08; 1:35 pm]
Connectionstraces to 44
Traces to 44 documents
U.S. Code
57 references not yet in our index
  • 39 CFR 111
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 44 CFR 65
  • 44 CFR 60.3
  • 44 CFR 65.4
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 47 CFR 64
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 CFR 64.604(a)(4)
  • 47 CFR 0.141
  • 6 CFR 5
  • Pub. L. 107-296
  • 116 Stat. 2135
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 109 Stat. 48
  • 42 USC 4321-4347
  • Pub. L. 94-163
  • 5 USC 522a(j)(2)
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 117.841
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 44 CFR 67
  • 44 CFR 67.4(a)
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(a)
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 344 F. Supp. 2d 108
  • 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090
  • 48 F.3d 1495
  • 516 U.S. 1042
  • 40 CFR 1500
  • 16 USC 1361-1407
+ 17 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 111.1
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 101
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 553
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 4105
U.S.C.§ 4001
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
F. Supp.344 F. Supp. 2d 108
F. Supp.240 F. Supp. 2d 1090
F. App'x48 F.3d 1495
Cites 101 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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