Notices. Final rule

123,591 words·~562 min read·/register/2008/05/21/08-1278

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

BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 1b [Docket No. RM08-10-000; Order No. 711] Submissions to the Commission Upon Staff Intention to Seek an Order To Show Cause Issued May 15, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Commission is amending its regulations to expand and clarify the right of an entity to submit a written response to the Commission in the event staff intends to recommend that the Commission initiate a proceeding governed by 18 CFR Part 385, or make the entity a defendant in a civil action to be brought by the Commission.

Subjects of investigations currently have the right under 18 CFR 1b.19 to be informed in the latter instance, but only in the event staff finds it appropriate and in the public interest. The amendment would grant that right, for both types of proceedings, in all cases except those in which extraordinary circumstances make prompt Commission review necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or irreparable harm. The amendment also clarifies the timing requirements for such submissions.

These changes codify current staff practice regarding recommendations for orders to show cause, and will allow subjects of investigations a fuller opportunity to present their positions to the Commission. DATES: *Effective Date:* The rule will become effective immediately upon publication in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Kuhlen, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-6855. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Before Commissioners:* Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. Final Rule Issued May 15, 2008. I. Background 1. The procedural rule set forth in 18 CFR 1b.19

(2007)governs the procedures to be followed regarding submissions to the Commission in the event Commission staff recommends that the subject of an investigation be made a defendant in a civil action to be brought by the Commission. Before enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 1 this provision rarely came into play, as most investigations have been resolved either through closure without further action or by settlement. Indeed, at a recent technical conference on enforcement held by the Commission, 2 it appeared that many energy practitioners were unaware of the submission process set forth in this regulation, and expressed a desire for more clarity regarding the due process rights of the subjects of staff investigations. 1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594

(2005)(EPAct 2005). 2 Conference on Enforcement Policy, Docket No. AD07-13-000, Nov. 16, 2007. 2. In light of the comments at the technical conference and the need to ensure due process in our investigations, the Commission has reexamined 18 CFR 1b.19 and determined to clarify its provisions and expand the procedural rights it provides. 3. The current language in the regulation provides that staff need only advise the subject of an investigation of staff's intent to seek an order to show cause in the event staff determines that it is appropriate in the interest of the proper administration of the law to do so. However, it is staff's practice to advise the subject of an investigation of such intent in all cases, except where exigent circumstances, such as the danger of irreparable harm, require prompt Commission action. Therefore, we believe it appropriate to codify the current practice and provide subjects the right to be informed of staff's intent, with the concomitant ability to present a response to be provided to the Commission for its consideration along with staff's recommendation. II. Commission Determination 4. This Final Rule amends 18 CFR 1b.19 to provide that in the event Commission staff intends to recommend to the Commission that it initiate a proceeding under 18 CFR Part 385 against the subject of an investigation being conducted under the provisions of 18 CFR Part 1b, or to recommend that the Commission make the subject of an investigation a defendant in a civil action to be brought by the Commission, the subject of that investigation shall have the right, in all but extraordinary circumstances, to be so informed and to have the opportunity to provide the Commission with a written non-public response to staff's recommendation. The Final Rule also provides that staff's notification to the subject of its right to make a response shall provide sufficient information and facts to enable the subject to make such a response, and further provides that within 30 days of such notice, the subject may submit its response to staff, which response staff will submit to the Commission together with its own recommendation. 5. Section 1b.19 currently provides that staff may inform the subject of an investigation 3 of staff's intent to recommend that the subject be made a defendant in a civil proceeding to be brought by the Commission only when staff determines it is appropriate in the interest of the proper administration of the law. However, as noted above, it is staff's practice to notify the subject of an investigation when it determines to seek an order to show cause in all situations except where exigent circumstances make immediate consideration by the Commission necessary. The current regulation also does not specify the time period by which the subject is to provide its response, providing instead that staff shall inform the subject of the due date. The amended regulation codifies staff's current practice regarding notification and will provide subjects of an investigation with a fuller opportunity to present their positions to the Commission. 3 The current regulation refers to the subject as a “person.” The amended regulation refers to the subject with the broader term “entity,” consistent with the meaning of that term as used in 18 CFR Part 1c. III. Information Collection Statement 6. The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 4 This Final Rule contains no information reporting requirements, and the filings permitted under the regulation are collected during the course of an investigation and, as such, are exempt from the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 5 4 5 CFR Part 1320. 5 44 U.S.C. 3518(c); 5 CFR 1320.4. IV. Environmental Analysis 7. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 6 Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 7 Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement that an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement be done. Included is an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions. 8 This rulemaking is exempt under that provision. 6 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 7 Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (Dec. 10, 1984) ( *codified at* 18 CFR Part 380). 8 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 8. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 9 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule concerns a matter of internal agency procedure and the Commission therefore certifies that it will not have such an impact. An analysis under the RFA is not required. 9 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (RFA). VI. Document Availability 9. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 10. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 11. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , or the Public Reference Room at

(202)502-8371, TTY

(202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* . VII. Effective Date 12. These regulations are effective immediately upon publication in the **Federal Register** . In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Commission finds that good cause exists to make this Final Rule effective immediately. It concerns a matter of administrative procedures and expands rather than diminishes the rights of persons appearing before the Commission. There is therefore no reason to make it effective at a later time. 13. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule, because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights of non-agency parties, other than to expand the ability of subjects of an investigation to present their views to the Commission before deliberations by the Commission on whether to initiate a proceeding governed by 18 CFR Part 385 against them. 14. The Commission is issuing this as a final rule without a period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and comment procedures are unnecessary where a rulemaking concerns only agency procedure and practice, or where the agency finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. This rule concerns only matters of agency procedure and will not significantly affect regulated entities or the general public, other than to expand the rights of subjects of an investigation to make certain submissions to the Commission. List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 1b Rules relating to Investigations. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Section 1b.19, Part 1b, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows: PART 1b—RULES RELATING TO INVESTIGATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 1b continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 792 *et seq.* ; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 A.P.U.S.C. 1-85; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46297. 2. Section 1b.19 is revised to read as follows: § 1b.19 Submissions. In the event the Investigating Officer determines to recommend to the Commission that an entity be made the subject of a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter, or that an entity be made a defendant in a civil action to be brought by the Commission, the Investigating Officer shall, unless extraordinary circumstances make prompt Commission review necessary in order to prevent detriment to the public interest or irreparable harm, notify the entity that the Investigating Officer intends to make such a recommendation. Such notice shall provide sufficient information and facts to enable the entity to provide a response. Within 30 days of such notice, the entity may submit to the Investigating Officer a non-public response, which may consist of a statement of fact, argument, and/or memorandum of law, with such supporting documentation as the entity chooses, showing why a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter should not be instituted against said entity, or why said entity should not be made a defendant in a civil action brought by the Commission. If the response is submitted by the due date, the Investigating Officer shall present it to the Commission together with the Investigating Officer's recommendation. The Commission will consider both the Investigating Officer's recommendation and the entity's timely response in deciding whether to take further action. [FR Doc. E8-11315 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 592 Rough Diamonds Control Regulations AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) is amending the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations (the “Regulations”) to add two requirements designed to enhance the collection of statistics related to importations and exportations of rough diamonds. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622-4855, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220 (not toll free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic and Facsimile Availability This document and additional information concerning the Office of Foreign Assets Control are available from OFAC's Web site ( *http://www.treas.gov/ofac* ) or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077. Background On August 4, 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) promulgated the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 592 (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order 13312 (“E.O. 13312”) of July 29, 2003. E.O. 13312 was issued to implement the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19) and the multilateral Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds (KPCS). The Regulations were amended on September 23, 2004, to revise certain reporting requirements (69 FR 56936). Today, OFAC is further amending the Regulations to enhance the compilation of statistical data relating to the importation and exportation of rough diamonds. Specifically, OFAC is amending the Regulations by adding an additional note to the definition of the term *Controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme* , contained in section 592.301. Section 592.301 sets forth requirements that apply, as appropriate, to the importation into, or exportation from, the United States of any shipment of rough diamonds. The new note to this section explains that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)will not release custody of an importation of rough diamonds, unless the import conforms with the CBP's formal entry for consumption requirements, as defined in the CBP regulations ( *see* 19 CFR 141.0a(f)). In addition, OFAC is amending the Regulations to add a new section 592.502, which requires all importers and exporters of rough diamonds to file an annual report with the Department of State detailing their import, export and stockpile information. Public Participation Because the amendments to the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information related to 31 CFR Part 592 are contained in 31 CFR Part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0198. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 592 Administrative practice and procedure, Foreign trade, Exports, Imports, Kimberly Process, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rough diamond. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 592 as follows: PART 592—ROUGH DIAMONDS CONTROL REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 592 continues to read as follows: Authority: 3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); Pub. L. 108-19, 117 Stat. 631 (19 U.S.C. 3901-3913); E.O. 13312, 68 FR 45151, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 246. Subpart C—General Definitions 2. Amend § 592.301(b) by adding a new Note 4 to read as follows: § 592.301 Controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

(b)* * * Note 4 to § 592.301: As of May 21, 2008, any diamond, regardless of value, that is described in subheadings 7102.10, 7102.21 or 7102.31, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and is imported into the United States shall not be released from the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)except by a formal entry for consumption, as defined in § 141.0a(f) of the CBP regulations. *See* 19 CFR 141.0a(f). Subpart E—Records and Reports 3. Add a new § 592.502 to read as follows: § 592.502 Annual Reports by Rough Diamond Importers and Exporters.

(a)*Requirement for reports* . Reports shall be filed annually, by April 1 of each year, covering the preceding calendar year (January 1-December 31), except the first annual report, covering the period January 1-December 31, 2007, shall be filed by September 1, 2008.

(b)*Who must report; reporting period* . All persons who import rough diamonds into the United States or export rough diamonds from the United States during the reporting period (January 1-December 31).

(c)*What must be reported* . The report need not be in any specified format but must include the following information:

(1)The contact information of the U.S. importer or exporter, including name, address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address;

(2)Identification of total import and/or export activity for each of the three Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications of rough diamonds during the reporting year, including:

(A)Total amount of carats of each classification of rough diamonds imported and/or exported; and

(B)Total of all shipments of each classification of rough diamonds imported and/or exported.

(3)Information on stockpiles of rough diamonds, if any, for each of the three Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications, as of the end of the reporting year, reported in both total carats and approximate total value. For the purposes of this section, stockpiles are defined as the amount of rough diamonds held unsold at the end of the reporting period.

(d)*Where to send report* . Reports must be filed with the Office of the Special Advisor for Conflict Diamonds, U.S. Department of State via e-mail at *USKimberleyProcess@state.gov* . For further information, please call that office at 202/647-1713.

(e)*Failure to file report* . Any importer or exporter who fails to file a required report shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Subpart F of this part. Dated: May 14, 2008. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. [FR Doc. E8-11318 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4811-45-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS DECATUR (DDG 73) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: This rule is effective May 21, 2008 and is applicable beginning April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS DECATUR (DDG 73) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i) pertaining to placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii) pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a) pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the vessel, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and, Annex I, paragraph 3(c) pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner different from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Table Four, Paragraph 16 of § 706.2 is amended by removing the entry for USS DECATUR (DDG 73). 3. Table Five, of § 706.2 is amended by revising the following entry for USS DECATUR (DDG 73), to read as follows: Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights not over all other lights and obstructions. annex I, sec. 2(f) Forward masthead light not in forward quarter of ship. annex I, sec. 3(a) After mast-head light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. annex I, sec. 3(a) Percentage horizontal separation attained * * * * * * * USS DECATUR DDG 73 N/A X X 15.0 * * * * * * * Approved: April 29, 2008. M.R. Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-11216 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS GREEN BAY (LPD 20) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: This rule is effective May 21, 2008 and is applicable beginning March 5, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR Part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS GREEN BAY (LPD 20) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Rule 27, pertaining to the placement of all-round task lights in a vertical line; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical separation between anchor lights. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Table Three of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS GREEN BAY: § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Three Vessel No. Masthead lights arc of visibility; rule 21(a) Side lights arc of visibility; rule 21(b) Stern light arc of visibility; rule 21(c) Side lights distance inboard of ship's sides in meters 3(b) Annex 1 Stern light, distance forward of stern in meters; rule 21(c) Forward anchor light, height above hull in meters; 2(k) Annex 1 Anchor lights relationship of aft light to forward light in meters 2(k) Annex 1 * * * * * * * USS GREEN BAY LPD 20 1.29 m below * * * * * * * 3. Table Four, in Paragraph 20 of § 706.2, is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS GREEN BAY (LPD 20): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Vessel Number Angle in degrees of task lights off vertical as viewed from directly ahead of astern USS GREEN BAY LPD 20 10 4. Table Five of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS GREEN BAY: § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights not over all other lights and obstructions. Annex I, sec. 2(f) Forward masthead light not in forward quarter of ship. Annex I, sec. 3(a) After mast-head light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. Annex I, sec. 3(a) Percentage horizontal separation attained * * * * * * * USS GREENBAY LPD 20 X 70.9 * * * * * * * Approved: April 29, 2008. M. Robb Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-11217 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0957; FRL-8568-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Wisconsin; Redesignation of Kewaunee County to Attainment for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: On June 12, 2007, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR)submitted a request to redesignate Kewaunee County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA proposed to approve this submission on December 11, 2007. EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on January 10, 2008. EPA received comments from the Sierra Club and the Door County Corporation Counsel. EPA is approving Wisconsin's request and the associated maintenance plan for continuing to attain the standard. As part of this action, EPA is making a determination that Kewaunee County has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based on complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in Kewaunee County. Monitoring data for 2007 continue to show monitored attainment of the NAAQS. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for Kewaunee County and is redesignating Kewaunee County to attainment. Finally, EPA is approving, for purposes of transportation conformity, Wisconsin's 2012 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Kewaunee County. DATES: This final rule is effective May 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA R05 OAR 2007-0957. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886 1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: Table of Contents I. What is the background for this rule? II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. What is the background for this Rule? On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). On March 12, 2008, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson signed a rule promulgating a more stringent 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. This rule was published in the **Federal Register** on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). EPA will designate nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in 2010. This rule only addresses the status of Kewaunee County with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The background for today's actions with respect to the 1997 ozone standard is discussed in detail in EPA's December 11, 2007, proposal (72 FR 70255). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness, as determined in accordance with Appendix I of Part 50. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available to determine that the area has attained the standard and that it meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). On June 12, 2007, the WDNR submitted a request to redesignate Kewaunee County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004 through 2006, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The December 11, 2007, proposed rule provides a detailed discussion of how Wisconsin met this and other CAA requirements. On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , Docket No. 04 1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:

(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;

(2)Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;

(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, contingent on an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and

(4)certain transportation conformity requirements for certain types of federal actions. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93. II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action? EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on January 10, 2008. EPA received comments from Sierra Club and the Door County Corporation Counsel. A summary of the comments received, and EPA's responses, follow.

(1)*Comment:* Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require the SIP to mandate Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT)for all volatile organic compound

(VOC)sources within the nonattainment area. Wisconsin has not demonstrated that the SIP meets this requirement. While Wisconsin promulgated some VOC RACT rules for the 1-hour ozone standard, the State has not reviewed them to determine whether they are still valid and sufficiently stringent under the 8-hour standard. *Response:* Under EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). *See Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, *e.g.* also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis). Kewaunee County was not classified under subpart 2 of the CAA and thus was not subject to the section 182 RACT requirement. The applicable part D, subpart 1, SIP requirements for Kewaunee County are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). The commentor specifically cites section 172(c)(1), which requires reasonably available control measures (RACM). For purposes of redesignation, a state must meet all requirements of section 110 and part D that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request. The State of Wisconsin submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for Kewaunee County prior to the deadline for submissions required under section 172(c)(1)-(9); therefore, these submissions are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Moreover, where EPA determines that an area is attaining the standard, since the requirement for submission of an attainment demonstration is suspended, and RACM is a component of an attainment demonstration, the requirement for submission of RACM is suspended. 40 CFR 51.918, 70 FR 71645-71646 (November 29, 2005), General Preamble 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). The commentor also cites section 182(b)(2) of the CAA, which requires RACT in areas classified as moderate or above. At the time the redesignation request was submitted, Kewaunee County was not classified under subpart 2 of the CAA and, therefore, was not subject to section 182(b)(2), which only applies to areas classified as moderate or above under subpart 2 of the CAA. It should be noted that the Court's ruling in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 vacated the portion of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule that classified certain areas under Subpart 1. In response to this vacatur, EPA is in the process of developing a rule that will classify the areas that were initially classified under subpart 1. EPA believes that, since EPA has not yet determined these new classifications and requirements, redesignation can now go forward. This belief is based upon:

(1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements due at the time the request is submitted; and,

(2)consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the future be applied.

(2)*Comment:* Wisconsin's Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) RACT rules have not yet been approved by EPA into the Wisconsin SIP. Therefore, Wisconsin does not meet the requirement to have a fully approved SIP. *Response:* Under section 182(f) of the CAA, NO X RACT is required in areas classified as moderate or above under subpart 2 of the CAA. As discussed in greater detail above, Kewaunee County was not classified under subpart 2 of the CAA and thus is not subject to the requirements of section 182(f).

(3)*Comment:* Wisconsin does not have a fully approved SIP because it has failed to submit the nonattainment SIP for the 8-hour ozone standard, which was due June 15, 2007. Unless Wisconsin has a fully approved nonattainment SIP in place for 8-hour ozone, the Administrator is prohibited from approving Wisconsin's redesignation request. *Response:* As discussed above, it is EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA that, to qualify for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignation request. Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. *Sierra Club* v. *EPA* , 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS). The State of Wisconsin submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for Kewaunee County prior to the deadline for submission of an attainment demonstration; therefore, an attainment demonstration is not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation. Moreover, where EPA determines that an area is attaining the standard, an attainment demonstration is not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation, since attainment has already been reached. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, September 4, 1992 and General Preamble 57 FR 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also 40 CFR 51.918.

(4)*Comment:* Wisconsin has not submitted a SIP to control mercury. Therefore, Wisconsin's SIP is incomplete and EPA cannot redesignate any area as in attainment. *Response:* EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule under section 111(d) of the CAA. Therefore, the submission of a plan to control mercury is not required under subpart 1 as part of an ozone SIP, and is irrelevant to the approval of an ozone redesignation. Wisconsin has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for Kewaunee County under Section 110 and part D of the CAA, as required by section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA.

(5)*Comment:* Wisconsin lacks adequate funding and personnel to provide a user-friendly Web site for its permits, to respond to EPA comments regarding Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)permits, and maintain organized files accessible to the public. These shortcomings were identified by EPA as part of its review of the State's PSD program in 2006. Until the funding and resources issues are resolved, EPA may not approve the redesignation. *Response:* EPA approved Wisconsin's PSD program on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745). EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni Memorandum, page 3, *Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance* v. *Browner.* 144 F. 3d 984,989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), *Wall* v. *EPA* , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). The review to which the commentor refers was part of the national NSR Program Evaluation Project. These permit program reviews were intended to highlight the positive aspects of a state's air permitting program and to foster quality improvements in the program. In that report, EPA highlighted many program strengths, including “a good modeling program, a good public comment process, and overall clear and well-organized permits.” The report goes on to find that WDNR maintains a Web site containing all permit actions, has consistently logged Best Available Control

(BACT)and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

(LAER)determinations into the RACT/BACT/LAER/Clearinghouse, has a program for improving the quality and issuance of permits and works with EPA to ensure decisions for determinations are made based on EPA policy. In the report, EPA found a few areas which could be improved. EPA suggested that WDNR could be more prompt in sending applications for PSD projects, improve its permit tracking system and be more prompt in responding to permit comments before the final permit is issued. EPA did not find Wisconsin's PSD SIP to be deficient, and believes that Wisconsin has adequate personnel and funding to carry out its plan. Section 110(a)(2)(E).

(6)*Comment:* Wisconsin has not specified contingency measures should Kewaunee County not attain the 8-hour standard in the future. Instead, Wisconsin proposes to “evaluate the sufficiency of control measures that have already been promulgated, but not fully implemented at the time of violation, to return the area to attainment” and then, at an unspecified future time “determine that additional [unspecified] measures are necessary to return the area to attainment * * * from the list. * * *” *Response:* Wisconsin has included a list of potential contingency measures in its maintenance plan. These include: reduced VOC content in the Architectural, Industrial and Maintenance coatings rule and/or commercial and consumer products rule and/or federal vehicle toxics rule and broadening the application of the NO X RACT program. Wisconsin has specified the triggering event as a violation and has committed to implement appropriate contingency measures within eighteen months. Thus, the state has identified a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the State. Because it is not possible, however, to determine what control measure will be most appropriate and effective should a contingency measure be triggered at some point in the future, Wisconsin is not limited to selecting measures only from its list. If a contingency measure is triggered, the State can adopt a contingency measure from this list or choose another contingency measure which has been determined to be effective. A state can choose as its contingency measure any adopted but not fully implemented control measure providing that it is not included in the calculation of the maintenance inventory. The emissions reductions from these programs are real, not considered in maintenance plan emissions budgets, and can be achieved more quickly since the state has already gone through the adoption process. Wisconsin goes beyond this minimal requirement by committing to evaluate the sufficiency of these control measures to return the area to attainment. To prohibit a state from using any control measure adopted prior to the actual triggering of a contingency measure would only penalize states that are proactive in addressing anticipated air quality problems. EPA's approval of measures that have already been adopted has been upheld in the analogous context of section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. *Louisiana Environmental Action Network* v. *EPA* , 382. F.3d 575 (Fifth Cir. 2004). EPA concludes that there is adequate assurance that the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQs that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A and section 107(d)(3)(E).

(7)*Comment:* Wisconsin does not have a fully approved SIP because it has not yet complied with the Credible Evidence Rule (62 FR 8314). *Response:* Wisconsin's SIP is consistent with the Credible Evidence Rule. Specifically, Wisconsin rule NR439.06 states, “Notwithstanding the compliance determination methods which the owner or operator of a source is authorized to use under this chapter, the department may use any relevant information or appropriate method to determine a source's compliance with applicable emission limitations.” This rule was approved by EPA on August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709) with respect to VOCs, and on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745) with respect to all pollutants. Further, credible evidence requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The credible evidence SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995), 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). Section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.

(8)*Comment:* To qualify for redesignation, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires that the improvement in air quality be “due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions * * *.” Wisconsin's request for redesignation does not make this showing, instead, it shows a calculated reduction, which is neither real nor permanent and enforceable. *Response:* Wisconsin has calculated the change in emissions between 2002, one of the years used to designate the area as nonattainment, and 2005, one of the years Kewaunee County monitored attainment. See Tables 3, 4 and 5 at 72 FR 70262. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of permanent and enforceable regulatory control measures that Kewaunee County and upwind areas have implemented in recent years. Kewaunee County is impacted by the transport of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind areas. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind areas are relevant to the improvement in air quality in Kewaunee County. Wisconsin adopted NO X controls for large existing sources and established emissions standards for new sources as part of its rate of progress plan under the 1-hour ozone standard. Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind areas as a result of federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future. Federal emission control measures include: Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards, the National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NO X SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NO X . In Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana alone, the NO X SIP call has been responsible for a reduction in ozone season NO X emissions in excess of 196,400 tons between 2000 and 2004. The reduction in NO X emissions has resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering Kewaunee County.

(9)*Comment:* Wisconsin's redesignation request purports to show a decrease in actual emissions, through permanent and enforceable measures, between 2002 and 2005, claiming that “Wisconsin has documented specific permanent and enforceable programs responsible for emission reductions over this time period.” The emission reductions “appear to be either a result of a different metric to calculate emissions in 2002 versus 2005, or due to unenforceable and non-permanent reductions.” For example, emissions from point sources and nonpoint sources in Appendix 4 are calculated based on variables such as vehicle miles traveled, amount of fuel combusted, and county employment. These variables directly affect the emissions from year to year, but are neither permanent nor enforceable. Therefore, Wisconsin's submission does not demonstrate that any such decreases are due to permanent and enforceable reductions. *Response:* It is not necessary for every change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, it is necessary for the improvement in air quality to be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. As discussed above, Kewaunee County and upwind areas have implemented a number of permanent and enforceable regulatory control measures which have reduced emissions and resulted in a corresponding improvement in air quality. Wisconsin adopted NO X controls for large existing sources and established emissions standards for new sources as part of its rate of progress plan under the 1-hour ozone standard. Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind areas as a result of federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future. Federal emission control measures include: Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards, the NLEV program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NO X SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NO X . In Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana alone, the NO X SIP call has been responsible for a reduction in ozone season NO X emissions in excess of 196,400 tons between 2000 and 2004. Further, Wisconsin has followed EPA guidance in development of inventories for 2002 and 2005. For the nonroad sector, the same version of the National Mobile Inventory Model

(NMIM)was run for both years. The reduction in emissions from 2002-2005 is the result of fleet turnover and emissions controls, not differences in methodology. With respect to the onroad sector, MOBILE6.2.03 was run for both years, with an increase in vehicle miles traveled between 2002 and 2005. The reduction in emissions is due to federal motor vehicle control programs and fleet turnover, not differences in methodology. With respect to area sources, Wisconsin used appropriate emission calculation methodologies. While there were some minor changes in emissions factors or throughput for some area source categories, these were minor and did not greatly affect the overall inventory. Wisconsin did not claim area source emission reductions between 2002 and 2005. Point source methodology remained consistent between the 2002 and 2005 inventories. Point source emissions were estimated by collecting process-level information for each facility. Typically throughput information was multiplied by an emission factor for that process. Emission factor sources included mass balance, stack testing, continuous emissions monitors, engineering judgment and EPA's Factor Information Retrieval database.

(10)*Comment:* In Appendix 4, there were different emission factors applied in 2002 and 2005, or a different method for calculating emissions was used, with 2005 emission factors or methods generally resulting in lower emissions than the factors or methods applied in 2002. For example, the emission factors for fuel combustion in 2005 are much lower than the factors used to calculate 2002 emissions. While emission factors may have been updated to be more accurate, the mere updating of emission factors from one year to another does not result in lower emissions. If Wisconsin is to demonstrate that emissions actually decreased between 2002 and 2005, the same emission factor must be applied in both reference years. *Response:* Wisconsin followed EPA guidance in development of inventories for 2002 and 2005. For the nonroad sector, the same version of NMIM was run for both years. The reduction in emissions from 2002-2005 is the result of fleet turnover and federal motor vehicle control programs, not differences in methodology. With respect to the onroad sector, MOBILE6.2.03 was run for both years, with an increase in vehicle miles traveled between 2002 and 2005. The reduction in emissions can be attributed to federal motor vehicle control programs and fleet turnover, not differences in methodology. Point source methodology also remained consistent between the 2002 and 2005 inventories. While there were some minor changes in emissions factors or throughput for some area source categories, these were minor and did not greatly affect the overall inventory. Wisconsin did not claim area source emission reductions between 2002 and 2005. The emission factors for the area source fuel combustion category did change, as the commentor stated. This category is such a small portion of the entire inventory, however, that these tiny differences are irrelevant. In 2005, the area source fuel combustion category represents 0.08% of the VOC inventory for Kewaunee County and 2.6% of the NO X inventory. Between 2002 and 2005, emissions from the fuel combustion category decreased by 0.054 tons per day for VOC and increased by 0.011 tons per day for NO X . We do not believe that the difference in emissions calculation methodology in any way affects Wisconsin's demonstration that the improvement in air quality in Kewaunee County was due to a permanent and enforceable reduction in emissions.

(11)*Comment:* One of the most significant sources of ozone-causing pollution is fossil fueled electricity generation. The WDNR calculates NO X emission reductions for these units based on a comparison of historical actual emissions. Actual emissions in 2005 are not the enforceable emission rates and do not represent a permanent and enforceable reduction. Because the sources could have emitted significantly more in 2005, and could in the future, these facilities' actual emissions cannot be used to show a permanent and enforceable reduction between 2002 and 2005. The failure to rely on enforceable emission rates is unlawful and arbitrary. *Response:* There are no fossil fueled electricity generation units in Kewaunee County. Therefore, emissions from these facilities were not included or considered as part of the maintenance plan inventory for Kewaunee County. It should be noted, however, that the NO X SIP call issued by EPA on October 27, 1998, required the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NO X . In Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana alone, the NO X SIP call has been responsible for a reduction in ozone season NO X emissions in excess of 196,400 tons between 2000 and 2004. These emission reductions are primarily in the fossil fueled electricity generation sector. This reduction in NO X emissions has resulted in a reduction of ozone and ozone precursors being transported into Kewaunee County.

(12)*Comment:* EPA has not adopted Wisconsin's RACT rules for electric generating units into the Wisconsin SIP. Nevertheless Wisconsin's redesignation submission assumes that RACT rules for NO X are in place in the future as part of the demonstration that the purported historical improvement in ozone concentrations is due to enforceable reductions in emissions. This reliance on future regulations as a basis for a historical improvement in air quality is unlawful and arbitrary. Even if future reductions in emissions could be used to make the demonstration under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), Wisconsin's reliance on RACT rules is unlawful and arbitrary because the RACT rules are not final. *Response:* Wisconsin has adopted NO X RACT rules which are currently under review by EPA. These rules apply to the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan nonattainment areas and will result in future upwind reductions in emissions. While Wisconsin included these rules in the discussion of permanent and enforceable control measures, WDNR did not, in fact, take credit for these projected NO X RACT reductions in demonstrating a permanent and enforceable reduction in emissions between the years 2002 and 2005 and EPA is not relying on them as a basis for finding that this criterion for redesignation has been met.

(13)*Comment:* Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan “include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area before designation of the area as an attainment area.” Such measures include the New Source Review

(NSR)program. These measures, contained in Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 408, are not included in the maintenance plan being proposed by the Department. As EPA has explained, “the State will be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with measures that achieve equivalent reductions.” However, upon redesignation, Kewaunee County sources would no longer be subject to rule NR 408, effectively removing sources from the control strategy. This is unlawful and redesignation cannot be approved unless and until rule NR 408 is redrafted such that it continues to apply in Kewaunee County after redesignation. *Response:* As clearly stated in EPA's October 14, 1994, policy memorandum from Mary D. Nichols entitled “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” “EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret “measure,” as used in section 175A(d), not to include part D NSR.” Congress used the undefined term “measure” differently in different provisions of the Act, which indicates that the term is susceptible to more than one interpretation and that EPA has the discretion to interpret it in a reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. See *Greenbaum* v. *United States EPA,* 370 F. 3d 527, 535-38 (6th Cir. 2004). (Court finds persuasive EPA's argument that the very nature of the NSR permit program supports its interpretation that it is not intended to be a contingency measure pursuant to section 175A(d).) It is reasonable to interpret “measure” to exclude part D NSR in this context because PSD, a program that is the corollary of part D NSR for attainment areas, goes into effect in lieu of part D NSR upon redesignation. PSD requires that new sources demonstrate that their construction will not increase ambient concentrations significantly and will not result in concentrations above the air quality standard. The State has demonstrated that the area will be able to maintain the standard without Part D NSR in effect, and the State's PSD program will become effective in the area upon redesignation to attainment. See the rationale set forth at length in the Nichols Memorandum. See also the discussions of why full approval and retention of NSR is not required in redesignation actions in the following redesignation rulemakings: 60 FR 12459, 12467-12468 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of Detroit, MI); 61 FR 20458, 20469-20470 (May 7, 1996) levels (Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH); 66 FR 53665, 53669 (October 23, 2001) (Louisville, KY); 61 FR 31831, 31836-31837 (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI).

(14)*Comment:* The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in *South Coast Air Quality Management District* v. *Environmental Protection Agency,* that controls established in an area under the 1-hour ozone standard, including NSR requirements, must remain in place pursuant to the anti-backsliding provision of section 172(e) of the CAA. The court held that anything “designed to constrain ozone levels is a ‘control’ pursuant to the anti-backsliding provisions in section 172(e), and cannot be relaxed even when an area is reclassified as a lower nonattainment designation.” The existing nonattainment NSR program in effect for Kewaunee County Wisconsin is a “control” which cannot be relaxed. The redesignation would result in the nonattainment NSR provisions no longer applying to Kewaunee County sources. This is an unlawful relaxation of “controls” established in nonattainment areas of Wisconsin. This violates the anti-backsliding provision in section 172(e). EPA cannot approve the redesignation until Rule NR 408 is revised to ensure that it continues to apply to sources in Kewaunee County, which was designated as nonattainment for 1-hour ozone under the 1990 Amendments to the CAA. *Response:* The Kewaunee County area is an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The anti-backsliding issues before the DC Circuit concerned whether an area designated nonattainment could rely on a less stringent nonattainment NSR program for the 8-hour standard instead of the more stringent program that had applied to the nonattainment area based on its 1-hour nonattainment classification. The issue before the court did not concern whether an area designated attainment is required to implement a nonattainment NSR review program. Sections 161 and 172(b) of the CAA make clear that areas not designated nonattainment are subject to the PSD program, not the NSR program that applies in nonattainment areas.

(15)*Comment:* EPA rules explicitly require maintenance demonstrations to be supported by modeling (40 CFR 51.112 and 65 FR 6711). Until Wisconsin conducts such a modeling demonstration, EPA cannot approve the maintenance plan. *Response:* A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See *Wall* v. *EPA,* 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), *Sierra Club* v. *EPA,* 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). 40 CFR 51.112 provides in relevant part that “[e]ach plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” Both the language and the context of this regulation indicate that it applies to attainment demonstrations, and not to stand-alone maintenance plans submitted under CAA section 175A. There is no reference in the regulation to modeling requirements applicable to a section 175A plan revision for the sole purpose of providing maintenance and not attainment. EPA policy and longstanding practice allows States to demonstrate maintenance by preparing an attainment emissions inventory corresponding to the period during which the area monitored attainment, and to project maintenance by showing that future emissions are projected to remain below this level for the next ten years. See Calcagni memo. Holding emissions at or below the level of attainment is adequate to reasonably assure continued maintenance of the standard. See 65 FR 37879, 37888 (June 19, 2000). Moreover, since EPA has determined that the area is in actual attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard, the requirement for submission of an attainment demonstration is no longer applicable. 40 CFR 51.918. Furthermore, regional modeling performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium to support attainment planning efforts for the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio shows continued attainment of the NAAQS in Kewaunee County in 2009, 2012 and 2018. See “Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document,” dated April 25, 2008.

(16)*Comment:* Because NR 408 would not apply to Kewaunee County after redesignation, the proposal to redesignate Kewaunee County is effectively a proposal to remove the NSR provisions. This violates section 110(l) of the CAA which states that “the administrator may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any reasonable applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” Increasing the major source threshold, lowering the control technology requirements, and removing the offset requirements all will result in increased air pollution and interfere with both attainment and reasonable further progress. *Response:* Section 110(l) provides that the Administrator shall not approve a SIP revision “if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.” Kewaunee County is monitoring attainment of the NAAQS and, thus, there is no need for “reasonable further progress” toward attainment. Furthermore, Wisconsin is not revising the applicability or terms of its NSR program. It is true that certain requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Wisconsin SIP (such as NSR) do not apply in attainment areas. However, EPA does not believe that fact means that a decision to redesignate an area as attainment is “interfering” with attainment or with requirements that apply only to nonattainment areas. For the reasons set forth above and in the proposal, EPA believes that Wisconsin's maintenance plan is adequate to maintain attainment for at least 10 years, and therefore concludes that this action will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

(17)*Comment:* The commentor states that he does not oppose the Kewaunee County redesignation, but makes the following points. Upwind sources of ozone and its precursors cause or contribute significantly to downwind ( *e.g.* Door County) non-compliance with NAAQS. Local and long-range transport of ozone and its precursors have and will continue to preclude downwind attainment of the NAAQS. The overarching goal is to reduce emissions so that the NAAQS are universally met. Reducing emissions upwind is the only means to decrease concentrations downwind. The commentor suggests that rather than focusing on redesignation, EPA should find the upwind sources that cause or contribute significantly to downwind non-compliance with ozone standards, regulate emissions from upwind regions to address the issue of transport and allow downwind areas a fair opportunity to achieve compliance, and place a moratorium on upwind sources being deemed to have attained the NAAQS if impacted downwind areas continue to show monitored nonattainment of the NAAQS. *Response:* This rule is a redesignation action that is designed to determine whether an area has met the requirements for redesignation to attainment. Considerations of how to address issues of transport from upwind areas are not related to the current redesignation action. As noted in the proposal, section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, which requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state, continues to apply to the state regardless of the attainment designation of an area. The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. Therefore, these requirements are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. See 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 25418, 25426-25427 (May 12, 2003). That being said, however, EPA has long recognized that ozone transport is a problem affecting many portions of the eastern United States. The Lake Michigan region both receives high levels of transported ozone and ozone precursors from upwind source areas and contributes to the high levels of ozone and ozone precursors affecting downwind receptor areas. Downwind shoreline areas around Lake Michigan are affected by both regional transport of ozone and subregional transport from major urban areas in the Lake Michigan region. Considerable progress has been made in reducing transported pollution. EPA promulgated and States have implemented the NO X SIP call, which has significantly reduced NO X emissions throughout the eastern half of the United States. In Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana alone, the NO X SIP call has been responsible for a reduction in ozone season NO X emissions in excess of 196,400 tons between 2000 and 2004. Other federal measures including the NLEV program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards continue to be implemented and will result in reductions in upwind emissions. In addition, EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)on May 12, 2005. CAIR is designed to achieve large reductions of Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) and/or NO X emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia and specifically addresses the transported pollution from upwind states that affects downwind air quality problems. (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan are all subject to CAIR.) SO 2 and NO X contribute to the formation of fine particles and NO X contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone. III. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking several related actions for Kewaunee County. First, EPA is making a determination that Kewaunee County has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also determining that Kewaunee County has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and EPA is, therefore, approving the State's request to change the legal designation of Kewaunee County from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA is approving as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A Wisconsin's maintenance plan SIP revision for Kewaunee County (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). Finally, for Kewaunee County, EPA is approving the 2012 MVEBs of 0.43 tpd of VOC and 0.80 tpd of NO X and 2018 MVEBs of 0.32 tpd of VOC and 0.47 tpd of NO X . In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions. IV. 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 affects the status of a geographical area and approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: May 12, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart YY—Wisconsin 2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph

(u)to read as follows: § 52.2585 Control strategy: Ozone.

(u)Approval—On June 12, 2007, Wisconsin submitted a request to redesignate Kewaunee County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted an ozone maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Part of the section 175A maintenance plan includes a contingency plan. The ozone maintenance plan establishes 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Kewaunee County of 0.43 tons per day of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and 0.80 tons per day of nitrogen oxIdes (NO X ) and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Kewaunee County of 0.32 tons per day of VOCs and 0.47 tons per day of NO X . PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. Section 81.350 is amended by revising the entry for Kewaunee County, WI: Kewaunee County in the table entitled “Wisconsin—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” to read as follows: § 81.350 Wisconsin. Wisconsin—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Kewaunee County, WI: Kewaunee County. 5/21/08 Attainment * * * * * * * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E8-11295 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 73 99 Wednesday, May 21, 2008 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. PRM-35-18; NRC-2005-0020] Peter G. Crane; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Denial. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-35-18) submitted by Peter G. Crane (petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend the regulations that govern medical use of byproduct material concerning release of individuals who have been treated with radiopharmaceuticals. The petitioner believes that this regulation is defective on legal and policy grounds. The petitioner requested that the patient release rule be partially revoked insofar as it allows patients to be released from radioactive isolation with more than the equivalent of 30 millicuries of radioactive iodine I-131 (I-131) in their bodies. The NRC, for the reasons described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document has determined that the issues raised in the petition do not justify a rule change. DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking PRM-35-18 is closed on May 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this petition for rulemaking using the following methods: *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and search for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2005-0020]. *NRC's Public Document Room (PDR):* The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. *NRC's Agency Wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS):* Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-6843, e-mail *Neelam.Bhalla@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On December 21, 2005 (70 FR 75752), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated September 2, 2005, filed by Peter G. Crane. The petitioner requested that the NRC revoke the 1997 amendment to 10 CFR 35.75, “Release of individuals containing unsealed byproduct material or implants containing byproduct material” (62 FR 4120; January 29, 1997, Patient Release Criteria Rule), insofar as it allows the release of patients from radioactive isolation with more than the equivalent of 30 millicuries of radioactive I-131 in their bodies. Subsequently, during the public comment period, the petitioner filed a document dated January 30, 2006, in which he stated that after filing the petition, additional information relevant to the issue of criteria for the release of patients treated with radioactive I-131 had come to his attention and some of the comments filed warranted a response from the petitioner. In the January 30, 2006, document, the petitioner further clarified his grounds for filing the petition. In addition, the petitioner submitted an additional comment on March 6, 2006, as corrected by a submittal dated March 10, 2006. The NRC considered these documents together with the original petition. NRC's patient release criteria are specified in 10 CFR 35.75. This regulation was amended in 1997 and authorizes the release of patients from licensee control if the total effective dose equivalent

(TEDE)to any other individual from exposure to the released individual is not likely to exceed 5 millisievert

(mSv)(0.5 rem) (Typical natural background radiation in the United States is 0.3 rem per year). Before that time, NRC regulations required hospitalization of patients until the radioactivity in their bodies decreased to the equivalent of 30 millicuries

(mCi)of I-131. The provisions of the current rule allow outpatient treatment for greater than 30 mCi of I-131 based on the licensee's determination that the TEDE to an individual from the released patient is not likely to exceed 5 mSv (0.5 rem). The petitioner requested NRC to revoke the current rule and re-adopt the release criteria that existed before 1997. The petitioner believes that this regulation is defective on legal and policy grounds. The petitioner asserts that the 1997 rulemaking was defective on legal grounds because it was purportedly adopted in response to a petition from a member of the public; however, the petition was actually drafted at the request of the NRC staff, with NRC staff assistance, under NRC staff specifications. The petitioner alleges that the NRC violated its own rules because

(1)the NRC staff failed to disclose in papers forwarding the rulemaking, that the staff had assisted the former petitioner by encouraging the individual to submit the petition and

(2)the NRC did not mention any such assistance in its rulemaking notices in the **Federal Register** . The petitioner supports this assertion by referring to a memorandum from the Executive Director for Operations

(EDO)dated February 23, 1994, addressed to “All NRC Employees, “ that discusses the requirements in 10 CFR 2.802(b), which limits the assistance that the NRC may give prospective petitioners. The petitioner states that the memorandum advised that every year after 1991, the EDO had issued an announcement to NRC employees which clarified the permissible scope of NRC staff interaction with a prospective petitioner for rulemaking. The memorandum stated that should any NRC staff assistance be provided to a prospective petitioner regarding technical or substantive issues, that assistance must be disclosed to the Commission in the paper forwarding the rulemaking action for approval. Also, NRC staff assistance must be noticed in any public notice regarding the petition and any rulemaking that may result from the petition that is published in the **Federal Register** . The petitioner asserts that “assistance” as defined by the NRC includes encouraging a prospective petitioner to submit a petition, and that the NRC staff in its rulemaking notices in the **Federal Register** did not mention any such encouragement to the former petitioner to file the petition. The petitioner also asserts that the release of patients under the current rule creates an unwarranted hazard to the public and patient's family, particularly children. The petitioner's safety concerns are summarized as follows: 1. Dose to family members, especially children. The petitioner argues that patients treated for thyroid cancer with I-131 are being sent home under conditions that guarantee that family members will receive large and potentially harmful doses of radiation under uncontrolled conditions. The petitioner expresses concern for exposure to children stating that children are more radiation-sensitive than adults and argues that children deserve more protection, not less. 2. Dose to members of the public during patient transport. The petitioner expresses concern about dose to members of the public during transport from patients who have been administered large amounts of I-131. The petitioner states that by reverting to the 1997 release criteria, the exposure to members of the public will be less because patients being transported home will not be released with large amounts of radioactivity in their bodies. 3. Contamination and dose concerns due to vomiting. The petitioner expresses concern about the risks of vomiting of the I-131 dosage, with resultant exposure to family members in cleaning patient vomit, and a loss of the administered dose to the patient. 4. Hypothyroid patients are not able to fully comprehend or remember the instructions provided to them. The petitioner asserts that although the patients are supposed to receive instructions on minimizing exposure to others, patients may have trouble comprehending and remembering the guidance, given their hypothyroid state. The petitioner draws from personal experience and states that the severe hypothyroid state impairs a person's ability to follow safety guidelines for the protection of family members and other members of the public. 5. NRC has allowed for reduction of exposure to hospital employees and clergy members at the expense of elevated exposure to family members, and particularly, children. The petitioner has referred to a discussion in the statements of consideration of the final rule published on January 29, 1997 (62 FR 4120) of relevant benefits and risks associated with the options of patient release and hospitalization. The petitioner asserts that the NRC acknowledged that family members of patients would receive higher doses of radiation, and justified this in part by arguing that members of the clergy who visit hospitals frequently would receive lower doses of radiation because cancer patients would be at home instead of in the hospital. Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit comments. The comment period closed on March 6, 2006. NRC received 48 comment letters including 3 submittals from the petitioner. There were 14 letters in support of the petition. These were primarily from cancer patients who had been treated with I-131 and released under the provisions of 10 CFR 35.75 or the equivalent State regulations. These patients expressed concern that they had to take care of themselves. However, had they been hospitalized, they would have been taken care of by the hospital staff. Several of these commenters expressed concern about exposure to family members and others, in particular from patient vomiting. One commenter supported the petition for a concern not cited by the petitioner. This commenter stated that the current release criteria have resulted in an increase in the number of events when radiation monitoring equipment detects radiation at municipal waste-handling facilities and that the States have to respond to these events. Commenters opposing the petition generally included physicians, medical physicists, and radiation safety officers, as well as several medical professional organizations. These professional organizations included the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncologists (ASTRO), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the American Board of Nuclear Physicians (ABNP), the American Thyroid Association, the Endocrine Society, the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM), the National Association of Nuclear Pharmacists, the American Pharmacists Association, and the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR). Commenters opposing the petition stated that reverting from the current release criteria back to the 30-mCi rule would result in additional and unnecessary healthcare costs, and would unnecessarily limit access to treatment for patients who cannot afford hospitalization. Commenters opposing the petition also stated that the provisions of the current rule provide patients the comfort and convenience of being in their homes, rather than the confinement in a hospital environment. Many physicians opposing the petition disagreed with the petitioner's assertion that the patients are released while they are a risk of exposure to others. These physicians commented that they carefully interview the patients and assess their ability to follow and understand radiation safety precautions and their living conditions at home, and then decide on outpatient treatment. These physicians also stated that they discuss with their patients arrangements to have any children in the households stay away from their homes during the initial week of their treatments. With regard to the petitioner's concern about patient vomiting, some physicians stated that they provide special instructions to the patients to handle the vomitus and prescribe anti-nausea medication, if needed. These commenters indicated that vomiting is a rare complication with these patients. One commenter generally opposed the petition but noted the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in ICRP Publication 94 (published in 2004), entitled, “Release of patients after therapy with unsealed radionuclides.” The commenter stated that ICRP Publication 94 now recommends that doses to children be constrained to less than 1 mSv (100 millirem) and that doses to children from patient contamination have the potential to be far greater than from external exposure. In light of this, the commenter suggested that there may be a need for NRC to consider adding instructions in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, “Consolidated Guidance About Material Licenses: Program Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses,” regarding the avoidance of exposure to children to patient contamination. NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Appendix U, “Model Procedures for Release of Patients or Human Research Subjects Administered Radioactive Materials,” provides instructions to minimize exposure to family members and other members of the public (U.2.3.1). Although these instructions include precautions to reduce the spread of contamination, the instructions do not specifically caution against avoiding exposure of children to patient contamination. Therefore, the commenter suggested that NRC revise NUREG-1556, Volume 9, to include specific guidance for patients on precautions to avoid children's exposure to radioactive contamination. Petition Resolution After reviewing the information provided in the petition, as supplemented, and the comments, the NRC has determined that the issues raised in the petition do not justify a rule change. The NRC believes that the current NRC regulations provide adequate protection to family members and other members of the public. The NRC's responses to the petitioner's specific concerns are provided below. NRC Responses to the Issues Raised by the Petitioner The petitioner asserts that the 1997 rulemaking was defective because it was purportedly adopted in response to a petition from a member of the public submitted in December 1990, but was actually drafted at the request of the NRC staff, and according to NRC staff specifications. The petitioner asserts that the NRC staff's failure to disclose this fact to the Commission in the rulemaking documents and the failure to notice this assistance in the **Federal Register** violated the Commission's rules. The petitioner asserts that NRC staff offered inappropriate assistance to the rulemaking petitioner. However, there were neither NRC regulations nor internal policies that addressed the staff role or level of assistance that could be provided to potential petitioners at the time that the alleged staff assistance occurred. In any event, a decision to initiate rulemaking to adopt the petitioner's proposals could not rest on a question of staff compliance with internal NRC procedures. However initiated, the 1997 rulemaking involved broad participation with 63 commenters, including medical practitioners and medical organizations, regulatory agencies in Agreement States, public interest groups and private individuals. Moreover, the American College of Nuclear Medicine and the American Medical Association filed petitions later that were included in the rulemaking. Their independent proposals as well as the broad participation by interested parties negate the inference drawn by the petitioner that the resulting rulemaking was merely the product of staff influence. To reopen the earlier rulemaking would require evidence that alleged procedural defects substantively affected the final rule in a manner requiring that additional rulemaking be initiated. No such evidence has been brought to our attention, nor is the Commission aware of any basis for such a conclusion. Thus, even assuming that the petitioner's allegations of undue staff assistance were true, the petitioner has not demonstrated a substantive basis for reopening the earlier rulemaking or for initiating rulemaking in response to this petition. Dose to Family Members, Especially Children The petitioner asserts that patients treated for thyroid cancer with I-131 are being sent home under conditions that guarantee that family members will receive large and potentially harmful doses of radiation under uncontrolled conditions. The petitioner expresses particular concern for exposure to children because children are more radiation-sensitive than adults. The concerns related to doses to the family members and members of the public from released patients were extensively considered during the development of the current patient release criteria rule. By way of background, in 1991 (56 FR 23360, May 21, 1991) NRC published a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part 20 “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” to include a change to the dose limits for individual members of the public in 10 CFR 20.1301. The rule lowered dose limits for members of the public from 500 millirem per year to 100 millirem per year. However, the criteria for the release of patients under 10 CFR 35.75 had been based on a dose limit of 500 millirem to members of the public. When 10 CFR Part 20 was issued, there was no discussion in the supplemental information on whether or how the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1301 were intended to apply to the release of patients. Some stakeholders were uncertain about what effect the revised 10 CFR Part 20 would have on patient release criteria and subsequently, three petitions for rulemaking were received related to this issue. One petition was received from Dr. Carol Marcus, one from the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), and one from the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. Marcus, and the ACNM petitions requested the NRC to amend the revised Part 20 and 10 CFR 35.75 to raise the annual radiation dose limits to members of the public from 1 millisievert (0.1 rem) to 5 millisieverts (0.5 rem) from patients administered radioactive materials, and the AMA petition requested that patient release be regulated by Part 35 rather than Part 20. NRC decided to resolve all of these petitions in a single rulemaking. In June 1994 a proposed rule was published to amend 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1) to specifically clarify that the dose to individual members of the public from a licensed operation does not include doses received by individuals exposed to patients released under 10 CFR 35.75. 59 FR 30724 (June 14,1994). However, the dose limits in the revised Part 20 were not changed. In the proposed rule, the NRC also proposed to amend 10 CFR 35.75 to change the patient release criteria from 30 millicuries of activity in a patient or a dose rate of 5 millirems per hour at 1 meter from a patient, to a dose-based criteria where the TEDE to an individual from exposure to a released patient is not likely to exceed 5 mSv (0.5 rem). Under the regulations in effect before 1997, activity within a patient was measured to determine whether a patient could be released from licensee control. However, the NRC determined that this type of an approach was not dependable, in that there were variants among the isotopes that would cause variations in the dose that would result to another individual from exposure to the released patient. The NRC believed that the primary consideration in the release of patients should not be the activity within the patient, but the potential doses to other individuals. NRC concluded that basing the patient release criteria on the dose to individuals exposed to a patient ( *i.e.* dose-based regulation) would provide a consistent, scientific basis for such decisions that treats all radionuclides on a risk-equivalent basis. A dose-based rule was therefore proposed that would allow consideration of case-specific factors to more accurately assess the dose to other individuals. The final rule amending Part 20 and Part 35 to incorporate these changes was published in 1997 (62 FR 4120, January 29, 1997). In April 1997, the NRC also published a report “Regulatory Analysis on Criteria for the Release of Patients Administered Radioactive Material” (NUREG-1492). The report assessed the potential internal and external doses to individuals exposed to patients who have been administered radiopharmaceuticals and performed a comprehensive risk/benefit analysis for adopting the 5 mSv (0.5 rem) TEDE criterion for patient release. The report stated that the criterion was based on the ICRP Publication 60, “1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection,” and the recommendations of the NCRP in NCRP Report No. 116, “ Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation.” Each of these reports provided a basis for allowing individuals to receive annual doses up to 5 mSv (0.5 rem) under certain circumstances. These recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP were based on a finding that annual doses in excess of 1 mSv (0.1 rem) to a small group of people, provided that they do not occur often, need not be regarded as unduly hazardous. The dose-based release limits also used assumptions that the internal doses for individuals who may come in contact with released patients were very small compared with doses from external exposures. The petitioner has not provided any data to refute the analysis provided in NUREG-1492. However, one commenter noted that ICRP Publication 94 now recommends that doses to children be limited to less than 1 mSv (100 millirem) and that doses to children from patient contamination have the potential to be far greater than from external exposure. The commenter recommended that NRC consider adding instructions in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, regarding the avoidance of exposure of children to patient contamination. The NRC carefully considered this issue in reviewing the petition and reviewed ICRP Publication 94. The recommendations in the report do not explicitly state that patients should be hospitalized. However, ICRP recommends that public dose limits and dose constraints for others be observed, and be followed with optimization, realizing that procedures of optimization and their effects on individual behavior will differ among individuals and their circumstances. In addition, ICRP recommends: “Since high absorbed thyroid dose may occur in infants and young children from contamination, and children's thyroids are very radiosensitive for carcinogenesis, this population should be restricted to the public dose limit of 1 mSv/year.” The report states that although the dose to adults exposed to released patients is mostly from external radiation, children may receive a dose from contamination. Therefore, restrictions following the release of patients should focus on infants and children. Recently, ICRP has also published a comprehensive revision to its recommendations made in 1991, in ICRP Publication 103. ICRP Publication 103 repeats the recommendations made in ICRP Publication 94 that young children and infants, as well as visitors not engaged in the care of patients, should be limited to a dose of 1 mSv (0.1 rem) per year. This recommendation represents a departure from previous ICRP recommendations, which did not make a distinction for children or infants. Therefore, NRC considered the following regulatory options for limiting the exposure to children and infants from released patients:

(1)Amend 10 CFR 35.75 to limit children and infants exposure to 1 mSv (0.1 rem);

(2)Amend 10 CFR 35.75

(b)to include special instructions if the dose to an infant or child could exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem); or

(3)Revise the guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, to include the ICRP Publication 94 recommendations and issue a Regulatory Issue Summary

(RIS)to medical licensees to make them aware of the ICRP recommendations. Option

(1)Amend 10 CFR 35.75 to Limit Children and Infants Exposure to 1 mSv (0.1 rem) NRC has determined not to change the rule to adopt a lower limit for children and infants. The NRC does not believe that such a rule change would be effective because it is difficult to meaningfully estimate the doses that may result from patient contamination. The factors involved in assessing such doses are largely indeterminate, and even assumptions are likely to be so much in error as to be meaningless. For example, the amount of iodine in the patient's saliva is highly variable even for patients receiving the same treatment, and the amount of saliva that may be ingested by a child is dependent on the details of the family's living arrangements, family habits and the age of the child, and cannot be reliably assumed to assess the dose to the child or the infant. This makes a dose-based approach to protecting children from patient contamination an impractical choice. NRC believes that an alternative approach that is more likely to provide better protection for children and infants would be for patients to take precautions to maintain the dose to children and infants as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). NRC therefore has determined that the instructions to the patients, as well as any guidance to physicians, should be modified to stress the need to keep children and infants away from any possible sources of contamination. 10 CFR 35.75(b) requires licensees to provide instructions, including written instructions on actions recommended to maintain doses to other individuals ALARA. Therefore, NRC determined that this guidance should be strengthened to protect children and infants from any sources of patient contamination. To achieve this goal, NRC has revised the guidance in NUREG 1556, Volume 9 and has developed a Regulatory Issue Summary

(RIS)to convey to the licensees the concerns expressed in ICRP Publications 94 and 103 about doses to children from patient contamination and the actions licensees and patients should take to keep children away from any sources of patient contamination. These actions would be based on the individual patient's circumstances and may include hospitalization of the patient based on the patient's family situation. NRC will issue the RIS and the revised guidance in NUREG 1556, Volume 9, to all medical use licensees and to the Agreement States concurrent with the issuance of this petition resolution. NRC believes that enhancing the guidance is a more efficient way of protecting children and infants than amending the regulations. In addition, in considering the disposition of a petition for rulemaking, NRC must consider whether addressing the topics raised in the petition are likely to result in a significant increase in safety or security for all affected stakeholders. As explained above, NRC does not believe that the issues raised in this petition significantly impact safety and security such as would warrant a rulemaking. Additionally, the NRC must consider the potential impact of a rulemaking on the agency's efficiency and effectiveness. NRC has limited resources for rulemaking; therefore any topic to be considered in the NRC rulemaking process must have a strong technical basis before it can be considered in the agency's prioritization process for rulemaking. In any given budget cycle, only a limited number of rulemakings can be funded. Topics with minimal safety or security impact may not reach the funding threshold. The NRC does not believe that there is a sufficiently strong technical basis to consider the issues in this petition in a rulemaking. Option

(2)Amend 10 CFR 35.75

(b)to Include Special Instructions if the Dose to an Infant or Child Could Exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem) NRC determined that it is not necessary to amend 10 CFR 35.75(b) to require that special instructions be provided if the dose to an infant or child could exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem). Section 35.75(b) presently requires a licensee to provide the released individual, or the individual's parent or guardian with instructions, including written instructions, on actions recommended to maintain doses to other individuals as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), if the TEDE to *any other individual* is likely to exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem). The requirement that instructions be provided if the TEDE is likely to exceed 1 mSv to any other individual includes that these instructions must be provided if the TEDE to children and infants is likely to exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem). Option

(3)Revise the Guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, to Include the ICRP 94 Recommendations and Issue a Regulatory Issue Summary

(RIS)to Medical Licensees to Make Them Aware of the ICRP Recommendations As discussed under Option (1), NRC determined to revise the guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, and issue a RIS to make licensees aware of the ICRP's new recommendations, and to heighten licensees' awareness of the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR 35.75(b). NRC believes that the protection for children is best achieved through maintaining doses ALARA. NRC believes that this can be accomplished under the current patient release criteria, but that the instructions to the patients, as well as any guidance to physicians, need to be modified to emphasize the need to keep children away from any possible sources of contamination. The guidance needs to be sufficiently flexible so that the patient's physician has the option of keeping the patient in the hospital for longer periods than currently required if the patient's living conditions warrant such a decision. The NRC believes that these actions will adequately protect infants and children. The petitioner also asserts that NRC has allowed for reduction of exposure to hospital employees and clergy members at the expense of elevated exposure to family members. The petitioner's assertion is based upon a misinterpretation of a response to a comment on the proposed rule as discussed in the Statements of Consideration of the final rule published on January 29, 1997 (62 FR 4120). Specifically, a commenter had noted that it would not be possible to maintain the same level of contamination control at home that could be maintained in a hospital. In responding to this comment, the NRC noted that the two situations were not comparable because areas in hospitals have potential for contamination from many patients, and that people who frequent the hospital, such as clergy, would therefore have the potential to be exposed to contamination from many patients. However, in the case of a released patient at home, therapeutic administrations usually occur no more than once a year and probably no more than once in a lifetime. The reference to exposure of hospital clergy to contamination from many patients was intended as an example, and was not intended to imply that removing patients from the hospital would constitute a benefit to clergy that would compensate for an additional risk to a patient's children. Rather, the Statements of Consideration in the 1997 final rule explain that NRC considered the results of studies and recommendations current at the time, evaluated the benefits to patients from being home, and concluded that doses to household members from one patient would be low, compared to increased exposure to hospital personnel from recurring administrations. NRC believes that the current rule provides adequate protection of the public and family members and minimizes exposure of hospital employees. Dose to Members of the Public During Patient Transport The petitioner expresses concern about dose to members of the public during transport from patients who have been administered large amounts of I-131. The guidance in NUREG-1556, Volume 9, provides adequate instructions for the patient to minimize time in public places (for example, public transportation, grocery stores, and shopping centers). Also, ICRP Publication 94 concludes that patients traveling after radioiodine therapy rarely present a hazard to other passengers if travel times are limited to a few hours. From the comments received, it appears that a vast majority of the patients return home in private vehicles. Other than describing a single anecdotal account of an I-131 patient who allegedly traveled home on a bus, vomited, and exposed her husband and children to radiation, the petitioner provides no specific data in support of his position. Contamination and Dose Concerns Due to Vomiting In support of his petition, the petitioner expresses concern about dose to family members who clean up the patient's vomit, and a loss of administered dose to the patient. Although the petitioner describes a case that he states is known to him, the petitioner provides no specific data in support of his concern. Some physicians have commented on the petitioner's concern and stated that the incidence of vomiting in their experience is rare, and that the physicians are able to prescribe anti-nausea drugs, if needed. The same view was expressed by physician members of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes at its November 2006 meeting. In addition, some physicians stated that they provide special instructions to their patients regarding handling of the vomitus and prescribe anti-nausea drugs, if needed. Hypothyroid Patients Are Not Able to Fully Comprehend or Remember Instructions. The petitioner expresses concern that most patients are in a hypothyroid state and, therefore, are unable to fully comprehend or remember the instructions provided to them. The petitioner describes these patients as “sick, and quite possibly stressed, groggy, and mentally fogged, to remember the guidance and follow it.” The petitioner does not provide any new or specific information in support of his concern. The regulations in 10 CFR 35.75(b) require instructions be provided to the individual, or the individual's parent or guardian, including written instructions, on actions recommended to maintain doses to other individuals ALARA if the TEDE to any other individual is likely to exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem). In the 2002 revision to Part 35 (67 FR 20249; April 24, 2002), 10 CFR 35.75(b) was revised to specify that licensees may provide instructions to either the released individual or to the individual's parent or guardian, to acknowledge that it is not appropriate to provide the individual being released with instructions in some cases ( *e.g.* , the individual is a minor or incapable of understanding the instructions). In addition, the regulations do not mandate the release of patients. Physicians always have the option of hospitalizing individuals based on their judgment of an individual's condition. One of the commenters, a physician, noted that at his institution if a patient is determined to be incontinent, incapable of self-care, or unable to adhere to the instructions, then the patient is treated as an inpatient. Waste Issue One commenter in support of the petition stated that the rule has resulted in an increase on the burden of State responders due to an increase in the alarms triggered at the municipal waste handling facilities. Although this issue was not raised by the petitioner, the NRC staff reviewed this concern. These alarms are generally triggered by any radioactivity detected at these facilities. The commenter did not provide any data on how many or what fraction of these alarms are triggered by the wastes from these patients. With regard to the environmental pathways of radioiodine, ICRP Publication 94 states that “regarding the release of patients from the hospital, the radioiodine is in the patient where it decays or is excreted primarily in urine, and finds its way into the environment.” According to the report, the impact of the released I-131 on the environment should be minimal, considering that I-131 has a relatively short half life of 8 days. The time it takes for the excreta of patients to be processed and returned to the ecosystem is relatively long. In addition, the impact of I-131 on the environment from this pathway is usually independent of whether the patient is hospitalized after treatment or released to go home. Conclusion The decision to deny the petition is consistent with NRC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2008-2013. NRC's strategic safety goal to “ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment” would continue to be maintained because NRC believes that the current rule is adequate to protect public health and safety from the release of these patients. The decision is also consistent with the Strategic Plan's focus on Organization Excellence. Specifically, the openness objective was accomplished by soliciting and considering public comments on the petition. It is expected that denying this petition will continue to maintain the NRC's effectiveness objective because reverting to the 1997 release criteria as requested by the petitioner would place a significant regulatory burden on licensees with no commensurate benefit to public health and safety. In conclusion, NRC finds that the arguments presented in PRM-35-18 do not support a rulemaking to revoke the patient release criteria in 10 CFR 35.75. Reverting to the 1997 patient release criteria would impose unnecessary regulatory burden and is not warranted for the protection of public health and safety. To address the petitioner's concern for exposure to children and infants, NRC has prepared a RIS and additional guidance which will be issued to all NRC medical use licensees, and to the Agreement States, concurrent to the resolution of this petition. For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this petition for rulemaking. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of May 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. R.W. Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E8-11344 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. AD08-8-000] Demand Response in Organized Electric Markets May 13, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference. SUMMARY: The Commission is providing an agenda for the technical conference to be held in this proceeding on May 21, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST), and detailed information regarding attendance, internet access, and transcripts. This conference will provide a forum to consider issues related to demand response in organized electric markets, as discussed in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was issued on March 8, 2008 in Commission Docket Nos. RM07-19-000 and AD07-7-000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Irwin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-6454, *Ryan.Irwin@ferc.gov* . Elizabeth Arnold, Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8818, *Elizabeth.Arnold@ferc.gov* . On April 10, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice (April 10 Notice) scheduling a staff technical conference in the above-captioned proceeding. As stated in the April 10 Notice, the conference will provide a forum to consider issues related to demand response in organized electric markets, as discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in Docket Nos. RM07-19-000 and AD07-7-000. *Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric Markets* , 73 FR 12,576 (Mar. 7, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,682 at P 95

(2008)(Competition NOPR). The technical conference will be held on May 21, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST), in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the public to attend and advance registration is not required. Members of the Commission may attend the conference. The agenda for this conference is attached. If any changes occur, the revised agenda will be posted on the calendar page for this event on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.ferc.gov* , prior to the event. 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 the Calendar of Events at *http://www.ferc.gov* 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 Washington, DC area and via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit *http://www.CapitolConnection.org* or contact Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at

(703)993-3100. Transcripts of the conference will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). They will be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the Calendar of Events approximately one week after the conference. Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. For more information about this conference, please contact: Ryan Irwin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-6454, *Ryan.Irwin@ferc.gov* . Elizabeth Arnold, Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8818, *Elizabeth.Arnold@ferc.gov* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Demand Response in Organized Electric Markets Technical Conference May 21, 2008 Agenda 9 a.m. Welcoming Remarks 9:20 Presentation by the Honorable Marsha Smith Commissioner, Idaho Public Utilities Commission and President, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), on behalf of NARUC. 9:45 Panel 1—Value of and Appropriate Compensation for Demand Response in Organized Electric Markets This panel explores the value of demand response in organized electric markets and appropriate compensation for demand response under currently approved tariffs. In particular, this panel addresses the issue of ensuring that demand response resources are appropriately compensated in a manner that is comparable to other resources. The panel will examine whether demand response resources are appropriately valued for the benefit that they bring. • Eric Woychik, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Comverge, Inc. • Daniel Violette, Principal, Summit Blue Consulting. • James Eber, Director—Demand Response and Dynamic Pricing, Commonwealth Edison Company. • Lawrence Stalica, Vice President, Linde Energy Services, Inc. • David Brewster, President, EnerNOC, Inc. • Robert Borlick, Energy Consultant, Borlick Associates. • David LaPlante, Vice President, Wholesale Markets Strategy, ISO New England Inc. • Paul Peterson, Senior Associate, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 11:45 Lunch 1:15 Panel 2—Demand Response in Organized Markets—Barriers to Comparable Treatment and Solutions to Eliminate Potential Barriers: ISO New England, NYISO and PJM This session addresses barriers to comparable treatment for demand response in the organized markets in ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

(PJM)and explores specific solutions for dealing with these barriers. Panelists are encouraged to address barriers to comparable treatment for demand response beyond those already identified in the Competition NOPR. • The Honorable Anne George, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control; Chair, NARUC Committee on Electricity and Co-Chair of NARUC-FERC Demand Response Collaborative. • Andrew Ott, Senior Vice President—Markets, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. • Henry Yoshimura, Manager, Demand Response, ISO New England Inc. • Paul Tyno, Executive Vice President of Program Development, Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. • Edward Tatum, Jr., Vice President, RTO & Regulatory Affairs, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. • Timothy Roughan, Director of Distributed Resources, National Grid USA. • Sandra Levine, Senior Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation. 2:45 Break 3 p.m. Panel 3—Demand Response in Organized Markets—Barriers to Comparable Treatment and Solutions to Eliminate Potential Barriers: CAISO, Midwest ISO, and SPP This session addresses barriers to comparable treatment for demand response in the organized markets in California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

(SPP)and explores specific solutions for dealing with these barriers. Panelists are encouraged to address barriers to comparable treatment for demand response beyond those already identified in the Competition NOPR. • Dennis Derricks, Director, Electric Regulatory Policy, Integrys Energy Group Inc. • DeWayne Todd, Power Manager, Alcoa. • Michael Robinson, Senior Manager of Market Design, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. • Jason Salmi Klotz, Senior Analyst, Energy Division, California Public Utilities Commission. • Joyce Reives, Director, DPL Energy Resources Inc. • H. Walter Johnson, Principal, Technology Strategies, California Independent System Operator Corporation. • J. Craig Baker, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Services, American Electric Power. 4:30 Concluding Remarks [FR Doc. E8-11314 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. RM08-8-000] Ex Parte Contacts and Separation of Functions Issued May 15, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing to revise its regulations to clarify its rules governing ex parte contacts and separation of functions as they apply to proceedings arising out of investigations initiated under Part 1b of the Commission's regulations. This proposal is intended to provide clearer guidance to both Commission litigation staff and persons outside the Commission in determining whether they may properly contact decisional employees once the Commission has established further proceedings on matters that had been investigated under Part 1b. The Commission also is proposing to clarify its regulations governing intervention to specify that intervention is not permitted as a matter of right in proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations. DATES: Comments are due July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov* . Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbur Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8953, *wtmiller@ferc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Issued May 15, 2008. I. Background 1. The Commission is seeking comment on a proposal to revise its regulations to clarify the application of its rules governing off-the-record (or ex parte) communications and separation of functions as they apply to proceedings arising out of investigations under 18 CFR Part 1b. The Commission has become aware of some uncertainty regarding the situations in which persons outside the Commission and Commission litigation staff may contact decisional employees of the Commission once it establishes a proceeding governed by 18 CFR Part 385 in a matter that has been under investigation pursuant to Part 1b. These proposed revisions are intended to clarify the applicable rules, place respondents and litigation staff on similar footing, and continue to ensure the integrity of Commission proceedings. Finally, the Commission is proposing to clarify its regulations governing interventions to specify that intervention is not permitted as a matter of right in proceedings arising from investigations under Part 1b. II. Discussion A. Separation of Functions and Off-the-Record Communications 2. The Commission's regulations governing off-the-record communications (Rule 2201), 1 or ex parte contacts, and separation of functions (Rule 2202) 2 serve related purposes. Both seek to protect due process rights and ensure the integrity of litigated proceedings by limiting off-the-record contacts between persons involved in litigating a matter and decisional employees of the Commission. 3 Decisional employees are defined to include Commissioners and their staffs, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and other Commission employees and contractors who may reasonably be expected to be involved in the decisional process of a proceeding. 4 Rule 2201 prohibits off-the-record communications by persons outside the Commission, made in connection with specified proceedings, with decisional employees. Rule 2202 prohibits litigation staff from advising on or participating in the findings, conclusions or decisions of adjudications. 5 1 Rule 2201 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2201 (2008). 2 Rule 2202 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2202 (2008). 3 The Commission examined the purposes and operation of Rules 2201 and 2202 in detail in *Statement of Administrative Policy on Separations of Functions* , 101 FERC ¶ 61,340

(2002)( *Policy Statement* ). 4 Rule 2201(c)(3). Litigation staff, settlement judges, neutrals and employees designated as non-decisional are excluded. 5 Although the coverage of Rules 2201 and 2202 is not identical—off-the-record communications compared to advising on decisions—in practice the coverage normally overlaps. 3. Rules 2201 and 2202 have important implications for investigations conducted under Part 1b. Generally speaking, Part 1b investigations are carried out by staff from the Office of Enforcement and are non-public. By regulation, information obtained by staff during the course of a Part 1b investigation is considered non-public until such time as the Commission determines disclosure is appropriate, or until disclosure occurs during an adjudicatory proceeding or pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. 6 Part 1b investigations therefore differ from other types of investigations carried out by the Commission, such as investigations into the justness and reasonableness of the rates in a particular market. Investigations that are not carried out under Part 1b generally are announced publicly, and include public comment and the maintenance of a public record in the same manner as adjudicatory proceedings. 7 6 18 CFR 1b.9 (2008); *see* 5 U.S.C. 552 (Freedom of Information Act). 7 *E.g., Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations* , 97 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2001). 4. During an investigation under Part 1b, the assigned employees gather information and examine the actions of regulated companies and market participants. The matters raised may not necessarily result in a proceeding governed by Part 385. For example, staff may close an investigation after concluding that no violation occurred, or the investigation may be closed for other reasons without sanctions being imposed. In other cases, the investigation may result in a settlement including payment of a civil penalty. There are no parties and no right to intervene in a Part 1b investigation and, as explained below, the ex parte and separation of functions rules do not apply. In some cases, staff may recommend that the Commission initiate further proceedings. If the Commission initiates a proceeding governed by Part 385, such as an order to show cause, an investigator may be assigned to litigate the matter, which brings Rules 2201 and 2202 into play. 8 8 *Policy Statement* , at P 24-26. 1. Separation of Functions 5. Rule 2202 prohibits litigation staff from advising in the outcome of “any proceeding in which a Commission adjudication is made after hearing.” The Commission discussed the scope of this prohibition at length in the *Policy Statement* , specifically addressing its application in the context of investigations. The Commission noted that it has generally interpreted Rule 2202 as applying where a matter has been “set for a trial-type evidentiary hearing.” 9 It did not at that time address the application of Rule 2202 to other types of proceedings, such as “paper hearings” in which the Commission determines matters based on written submissions. 9 *Id.* , at P 12. 6. The Commission addressed the application of Rule 2202 to investigations in *Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,282

(2007)( *ETP* ). 10 In *ETP* , the Commission stated: 10 *See also Amaranth Advisors, LLC,* 122 FERC ¶ 61,087 (2008). To provide additional due process in all future civil penalty cases under the FPA, NGPA, and NGA, at the time the Office of Enforcement investigative staff completes its investigation, it will transmit to the Commission a report with recommended findings and conclusions of fact and law and the Commission will attach the report to a show cause order to respond to the recommended findings. The Commission will not make any findings, preliminary or otherwise, at least until it has considered the response. In addition, at the point Office of Enforcement investigative staff submits a report to the Commission, designated Office of Enforcement investigative staff will become non-decisional employees for purposes of participating in the remainder of that enforcement proceeding, including any hearing or other procedures used by the Commission to resolve the proceeding. 11 11 *ETP* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,282, at P 89

(2007)(footnote omitted). The Commission thus expressed its intention to provide greater due process in investigations than is currently required by Rule 2202 by invoking the separation of functions prohibitions sooner than would otherwise be the case. 12 Otherwise, Rule 2202 could be interpreted as applying only when and if the Commission ordered a trial-type evidentiary hearing. 12 The Commission explained that it was exercising its discretion to extend procedural protections beyond the requirements of the regulations. *Id.* at P 88. 7. In this proceeding, we propose to revise Rule 2202 to bring it in line with the procedures adopted in ETP, with one alteration. Rule 2202 would specifically state that separation of functions restrictions begin to apply once the Commission issues a show cause order in an investigation under Part 1b of the Commission's regulations. The ETP order refers to the submission of staff's report, rather than a subsequent show cause order, as the “start time” for application of the separation of functions. Upon further consideration, however, we believe that the initiation of a proceeding under Part 385 would be a more practical triggering event. In the context of a Part 1b investigation, it is the issuance of a show cause order or the initiation of a civil action that commences a proceeding, making it the most logical and clearly delineated event to begin application of the rules limiting contacts with Commissioners and decisional staff. This approach is similar to that employed by other agencies. 13 It also provides a clear demarcation point, which should be helpful to both Commission staff and outside parties as they endeavor to remain in compliance with the rules. 13 For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules on contacts between litigants and decisional staff begin to apply at the time a proceeding is commenced. Depending on the type of proceeding, initiation of the proceeding generally occurs through various types of filings or through issuance of an order commencing proceedings. 17 CFR 200.111(c) (2008). The Federal Trade Commission follows the same approach, 16 CFR 4.7(e) (2008), and specifically excludes investigations that have not reached the adjudicative stage, 16 CFR 4.7(f). 8. Once a proceeding governed by Part 385 or a civil action is initiated, the Commission will designate which of the employees within the Office of Enforcement will be considered decisional for purposes of the relevant proceeding. All other Office of Enforcement employees will be non-decisional. If employees from other Commission offices are participating as part of the investigative staff after the proceeding governed by Part 385 is initiated, those employees will be designated as non-decisional at this time. The restrictions will continue to apply regardless of whether the Commission sets the matter for trial-type evidentiary hearing or some other procedure, such as a paper hearing. The Commission invites comment on this proposal. 2. Off-the-Record Communications 9. The Commission's rule governing off-the-record, or ex parte, communications, Rule 2201, 14 is similar in purpose, scope and operation to Rule 2202. Rule 2201 regulates contacts between persons outside the Commission and the Commission's decisional employees, while Rule 2202 regulates contacts between decisional and non-decisional employees. 15 With respect to scope, Rule 2201 applies to 14 Rule 2201 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2201 (2008). 15 *See Policy Statement* , 101 FERC ¶ 61,340, at P 7. any proceeding before the Commission to which there is a right to intervene and in which an intervenor disputes any material issues, any proceeding initiated pursuant to rule 206 by the filing of a complaint with the Commission, or any proceeding initiated by the commission on its own motion or in response to a filing. 16 16 Rule 2201(c)(1)(i), 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1)(i). The rule explicitly excludes rulemakings, investigations under Part 1b, proceedings without a party and proceedings in which no party disputes a material issue. 17 As a result, the restrictions on ex parte contacts do not apply while a Part 1b investigation is underway. They come into play only when the Commission initiates a proceeding. 17 Rule 2201(c)(1)(ii), 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1)(ii). 10. The Commission understands that the application of Rule 2201 to investigations has been the source of some uncertainty within the regulated community. For example, in connection with a Conference on Enforcement Policy held on November 16, 2007, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) asked the Commission to clarify several points: • That a Part 1b investigation is not a “proceeding” to which the ex parte rules apply unless and until it is set for hearing. • That communications between persons outside the Commission and Commissioners or decisional staff during investigations are not limited to situations covered in 18 CFR 1b.19, which allows investigative personnel to invite the subject of a Part 1b investigation to make a submission to the Commission in response to an expected recommendation that the Commission initiate civil action. • That the subject of a Part 1b investigation would not be acting inappropriately by contacting a Commissioner where the subject thought it was being treated unfairly or had a question that only the Commission could address. 11. As noted above, a Part 1b investigation is expressly excluded from the coverage of Rule 2201. Consequently, the subject of such an investigation could, without acting contrary to Rule 2201, contact a Commissioner while an investigation was pending but before the Commission initiated a proceeding based on the investigative staff's report. Concurrently with the issuance of this notice of proposed rulemaking, however, we are announcing 18 a policy to govern contacts by persons outside the Commission with Commissioners and their staffs. In the Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement, we institute a policy under which the subject of a Part 1b investigation may not communicate with Commissioners or their personal staffs about the investigation in person or by telephone. Instead, such communications must be written. 19 The subject may still speak to decisional staff other than Commissioners and their personal staffs about an investigation, and may speak to Commissioners and their personal staffs about subjects other than the investigation as otherwise permitted by the Commission's regulations. If and when the Commission issues a show cause order instituting enforcement proceedings, off-the-record communications of any sort would be prohibited by Rule 2201. To summarize, we are not proposing to revise Rule 2201 to prohibit off-the-record communications concerning Part 1b investigations between persons outside the Commission and Commissioners or decisional employees. We are, however, establishing a policy under which Commissioners and their personal staffs will accept only written communications during the pendency of such investigations. 18 Revised Policy on Enforcement, Docket No. PL08-3-000. 19 *See* 18 CFR 1b.18 (2008). 12. With respect to NRECA's remaining question on contacting the Commission, section 1b.19 20 is not the sole avenue open to the subject of an investigation. Furthermore, the answer to this question remains the same in light of the final rule we are issuing today to clarify section 1b.19. 21 Under both current practice and the revised section 1b.19 that we announce today, Office of Enforcement staff will notify the subject of an investigation, except in extraordinary cases, 22 of its intention to recommend that the Commission initiate enforcement proceedings. The revised section 1b.19 provides that, where staff gives such notification, the subject may submit a response within 30 days. Nothing in the former or revised version of this provision prohibits other contacts between the subject of an investigation and the Commissioners or decisional employees, nor does it act to override the explicit exclusion of Part 1b investigations from Rule 2201. Communications during a Part 1b investigation would, however, be subject to the policy we are announcing today, as explained above and set forth in the Revised Policy on Enforcement. 20 18 CFR 1b.19 (2008). 21 *Submissions to the Commission upon Staff Intention to Seek and Order to Show Cause* , Docket No. RM08-10-000. 22 An example of such an extraordinary circumstance would be the need to seek an injunction to prevent immediate and irreparable harm. 13. In view of the revision that this proposed rule would make to the separation of functions provision, there would be an inconsistency between Rules 2201 and 2202 in the context of a Part 1b investigation. The proposed change to Rule 2202 would provide that the separation of functions restrictions apply when the Commission initiates a proceeding under Part 385 through an order to show cause. This proposed rulemaking would include a parallel change to Rule 2201 to ensure similar treatment of investigative staff and respondents to a proceeding. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed revision to Rule 2201. B. Intervention 14. The Commission in *ETP* also addressed the question of intervention in enforcement proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations. Without categorically stating that intervention in an enforcement proceeding is impermissible, the Commission stated that, “[a]s a general proposition,” intervention should not be allowed. An enforcement proceeding necessarily focuses on the conduct and culpability of the subject party and does not directly implicate the rights of third parties in the same manner as, for example, a rate proceeding. Intervention by third parties thus could delay or complicate an enforcement proceeding and sidetrack it from its purpose. The Commission did note, however, that intervention might be appropriate once the enforcement proceeding had reached the stage of determining a sanction. This might, for instance, allow third parties to participate in determinations that might directly affect them, such as the allocation of disgorged profits. 23 23 *ETP* , 121 FERC ¶ 61,282, at P 19 & n.28; *see Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.,* 94 FERC ¶ 61,285

(2001)(allowing intervention in enforcement proceeding where state public service commission sought to clarify impact of settlement on state interests). 15. The Commission's rules currently provide that intervention is not appropriate in Part 1b investigations. Part 1b specifically states, “There are no parties, as that term is used in adjudicative proceedings, in an investigation under this part and no person may intervene or participate as a matter of right in any investigation under this part.” 24 This provision, however, does not specifically refer to enforcement proceedings arising out of a Part 1b investigation and does not distinguish between such proceedings and the investigations themselves. Because Rule 214, 25 which governs interventions, makes no specific reference to proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations, the current rules may be read to allow intervention in such proceedings on the same basis as any other Commission adjudication. The more sensible view is that, once an enforcement proceeding is established, intervention should not be available except under limited circumstances. 24 18 CFR 1b.11 (2008). 25 Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2008). 16. The Commission proposes to revise Rule 214 to state specifically that intervention is not permitted as a matter of right in enforcement proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations. This would leave open the possibility that intervention in an enforcement proceeding might be appropriate in some circumstances, such as where a third party wished to determine the impact of a sanction or other resolution upon its own interests. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 17. It should be noted that different considerations may govern intervention issues in proceedings arising from Part 1b investigations. The Commission has, for example, been less reluctant to permit intervention in proceedings involving reliability penalties. 26 Another situation that differs from the “classic” Part 1b investigation can arise where an entity files a complaint. The Commission may conduct a complaint proceeding while at the same time ordering a Part 1b investigation. In such situations, the Commission has allowed intervention more readily in the complaint proceeding, although intervention would not be proper in the Part 1b investigation. 27 This proposed revision is not intended to restrict the Commission's ability to determine the appropriateness of intervention in individual cases. 26 *See, e.g.* , *Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards* , Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at P 509, *order on reh'g* , Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). 27 *E.g.* , *New York Independent System Operator, Inc.* , 120 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2007). III. Information Collection Statement 18. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 28 This proposed rulemaking does not contain any information collection requirements and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus not required. 28 5 CFR 1320.12 (2008). IV. Environmental Analysis 19. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 29 Issuance of the revisions proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an Environmental Analysis or an Environmental Impact Statement. Included is an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions. 30 This proposed rulemaking is exempt under that provision. 29 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 30 18 CFR 380.4(1) and

(5)(2008). V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA)31 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rulemaking concerns procedural matters and is primarily intended to clarify existing regulations. The Commission certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon participants in Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is not required. 31 5 U.S.C. 601-612. VI. Comment Procedures 21. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due July 21, 2008. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM08-8-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 22. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* . The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 23. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 24. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. VII. Document Availability 25. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 26. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 27. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at

(202)502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , or the Public Reference Room at

(202)502-8371, TTY

(202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at *public.referenceroom@ferc.gov* . List of Subjects in 18 CFR part 385 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric utilities, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By direction of the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 385, Chapter I, Title 18, *Code of Federal Regulations* , as follows. PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988). 2. Amend § 385.214 by adding new paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 385.214 Intervention (Rule 214).

(a)* * *

(4)No person, including entities listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, may intervene as of right in a proceeding arising from an investigation pursuant to Part 1b of this chapter. 3. Amend section 385.2201 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 385.2201 Rules governing off-the-record communications (Rule 2201).

(c)* * *

(1)*Contested on-the-record proceeding* means

(i)Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii), any proceeding before the Commission to which there is a right to intervene and in which an intervenor disputes any material issue, any proceeding initiated pursuant to rule 206 by the filing of a complaint with the Commission, any proceeding initiated by the Commission on its own motion or in response to a filing, or any proceeding arising from an investigation under part 1b of this chapter beginning from the time the Commission initiates a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter.

(ii)The term does not include notice-and-comment rulemakings under 5 U.S.C. 553, investigations under part 1b of this chapter, proceedings not having a party or parties, or any proceeding in which no party disputes any material issue. 4. Amend section 385.2202 by revising it to read as follows: § 385.2202 Separation of functions (Rule 2202). In any proceeding in which a Commission adjudication is made after hearing, or in any proceeding arising from an investigation under part 1b of this chapter beginning from the time the Commission initiates a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter, no officer, employee, or agent assigned to work upon the proceeding or to assist in the trial thereof, in that or any factually related proceeding, shall participate or advise as to the findings, conclusion or decision, except as a witness or counsel in public proceedings. [FR Doc. E8-11326 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Mailing Requirement Changes for Parcel Select AGENCY: Postal Service TM . ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposal would revise *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) to reflect changes to the mailing requirements of our Shipping Services product, Parcel Select®, by requiring new markings on BMC-Presort or OBMC-Presort (Inter-BMC), and origin-entered Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded Inter-BMC packages. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 3436, Washington, DC 20260-3436. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bert Olsen at 202-268-7276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parcel Select has been redefined as a Shipping Services product using permit imprint or metered postage when mailing 50 pieces or more. In addition to destination-entered packages, Parcel Select will include BMC-Presort or OBMC-Presort (Inter-BMC), and origin-entered Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded Inter-BMC packages. To support the expanded product make-up and the separation of Parcel Select from Parcel Post®, effective September 30, 2008, the “Parcel Post” marking will not be allowed on any Parcel Select package. We encourage shippers to begin using the following markings as soon as possible, but no later than September 30, 2008: • Destination Entry—“Parcel Select.” • BMC—“Parcel Select BMC Presort” or “Parcel Select BMC PRSRT” • OBMC Presort (Inter-BMC)—“Parcel Select OBMC Presort” or “Parcel Select OBMC PRSRT”. • Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded Inter-BMC—“Parcel Select Barcoded” or “Parcel Select BC”. Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 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 proposed to be 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 *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows: Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM)400 Commercial Parcels 402 Elements on the Face of a Mailpiece 2.0 Placement and Content Markings 2.2 Parcel Select, Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail Markings 2.2.1 Basic Markings *[Revise the text of 2.2.1 as follows:]* The basic required marking (see 2.2.2) must be printed on each piece claimed at the respective price. The basic required marking must be placed in the postage area (i.e., printed or produced as part of, or directly below or to the left of, the permit imprint indicia or meter stamp or impression). Optionally, the basic required marking may be printed on the shipping address label as service indicators composed of a service icon and service banner (see *Exhibit 2.2.1* ): a. The service icon that identifies the marking will be a 1-inch solid black square. If the service icon is used, it must appear in the upper left corner of the shipping label. b. The service banner must appear directly below the postage payment area and the service icon, and it must extend across the shipping label. If the service banner is used, the appropriate subclass marking (e.g., “PARCEL SELECT”, “MEDIA MAIL”) must be preceded by the text “USPS” and must be printed in minimum 20-point bold sans serif typeface, uppercase letters, centered within the banner, and bordered above and below by minimum 1-point separator lines. There must be a 1/16 -inch clearance above and below the text. *[Revise the heading of Exhibit 2.2.1 from Package Services Indicator Examples to “Marking Indicator Examples” as follows:]* Exhibit 2.2.1 Marking Indicator Examples *[Revise Exhibit 2.2.1 by replacing “USPS PARCEL POST” with “USPS PARCEL SELECT”.]* *[Delete 2.2.2 and renumber current 2.2.3 through 2.2.6 as 2.2.2 through 2.2.5 and revise the heading of new 2.2.2 as follows:]* 2.2.2 Parcel Select Markings *[Revise the text in 2.2.2 as follows:]* Each piece in a Parcel Select mailing must bear a price marking. Markings must appear in either the postage area described in 2.2.1 or in the address area on the line directly above or two lines above the address if the marking appears alone (i.e., if no other information appears on that line). One of the following product markings will be required: a. Destination Entry—“Parcel Select”. b. BMC—“Parcel Select BMC Presort” or “Parcel Select BMC PRSRT”. c. OBMC Presort (Inter-BMC)—“Parcel Select OBMC Presort” or “Parcel Select OBMC PRSRT”. d. Barcoded Intra-BMC and Barcoded Inter-BMC—“Parcel Select Barcoded” or “Parcel Select BC”. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-11210 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1170; FRL-8362-1] Benfluralin, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Dicrotophos, Fluometuron, Formetanate Hydrochloride, Glyphosate, Metolachlor, Napropamide, Norflurazon, Pyrazon, and Tau-Fluvalinate; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the herbicides benfluralin and napropamide and the insecticides carbaryl and diazinon. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the herbicides fluometuron, glyphosate, norflurazon, and pyrazon and the insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, dicrotophos, formetanate hydrochloride, and tau-fluvalinate. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the herbicides fluometuron, glyphosate, metolachlor, and pyrazon and the insecticides carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q). DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1170, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

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

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1170. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the **Federal Register** under FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed and the timeframes for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke, modify, and establish specific tolerances for residues of the herbicides benfluralin, fluometuron, glyphosate, metolachlor, napropamide, norflurazon, and pyrazon; and the insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, dicrotophos, formetanate hydrochloride, and tau-fluvalinate in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)and Report of the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision

(TRED)for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone number: 1-800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, telephone number: 1-800-553-6847 or

(703)605-6000; Internet at *http://www.ntis.gov* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the Internet *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* for benfluralin, carbaryl, diazinon, dicrotophos, fluometuron, formetanate hydrochloride, glyphosate, metolachlor, napropamide, norflurazon, pyrazon, and tau-fluvalinate. The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data show that: 1. Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a higher residue level on the commodity. 2. The tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on “Risk management, Reregistration, and Tolerance reassessment” typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to harmonize tolerances with international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as described in Unit III. Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative Record electronically. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may search for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1170 and/or Benfluralin (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0210), Fluometuron (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0372), Formetanate Hydrochloride (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0032), Metolachlor (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0045), Napropamide (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162), Pyrazon (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0381), and Tau-Fluvalinate (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0230) then click on that docket ID number to view its contents. EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not of concern for the pesticide active ingredients mentioned in this unit based upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted studies that the Agency found acceptable. EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references are available for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities. 1. *Benfluralin* . The use of benfluralin on peanuts was voluntarily canceled on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37811)(FRL-7312-5); therefore, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on peanuts should be revoked. The Agency is also revising commodity terminology to conform to current practice by removing the “N” for negligible residues associated with the tolerances and changing the heading in 40 CFR 180.208 to the common chemical name, benfluralin. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.208(a) for residues of benfluralin (N-Butyl-N-ethyl-ααα-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine) in/on peanuts at 0.05(N); deleting the “(N)” for all the tolerance entries; and changing the heading in 40 CFR 180.208 to benfluralin. Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for benfluralin. 2. *Carbaryl* . Currently tolerances on raw agricultural food commodities are established for residues of carbaryl, including its hydrolysis product 1-naphthol calculated as 1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate. The Agency has determined that the hydrolysis product, 1-naphthol calculated as 1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate does not contribute significantly to the residues and has considerably less potential as a cholinesterase inhibitor; therefore, the residue of concern for plants should be the parent compound, carbaryl, only. Additionally, the Agency determined that the regulated residues of concern in/on livestock (meat and milk) should be expanded to also include the free and conjugated residues of carbaryl: 5,6-dihydro-5,6-dihydroxy carbaryl, and 5-methoxy-6-hydroxy carbaryl. Consequently, 40 CFR 180.169(a)(3) and (a)(4) are not required. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerance expressions for raw agricultural commodities in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) to regulate residues of the insecticide carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) and revising the tolerance expressions for livestock (meat and milk) in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2) to regulate the residues of the insecticide carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) including its metabolites 1-naphthol (naphthyl-sulfate), 5,6-dihydrodihydroxycarbaryl and 5,6-dihydrodihydroxy naphthol, calculated as 1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate and the free and conjugated residues of carbaryl: 5.6-dihydro-5,6-dihydroxy carbaryl, and 5-methoxy-6-hydroxy carbaryl; transferring the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(3) to 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2); transfering tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(4) to 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) and removing 40 CFR 180.169(a)(3) and (a)(4). Based on the available field trial data and food processing that indicate residues of carbaryl are as high as 10.6 ppm in/on apple wet pomace (in which residues concentrate at 1.3x), 9.55 ppm in/on aspirated grain fractions (7.4x), 8.09 ppm in/on citrus oil (2.4x), 7.94 ppm in/on raisins (1.4x), and 11 ppm rice hulls (2.4x), the Agency has determined tolerances should be established in/on apple, wet pomace at 15 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 70 ppm; citrus, oil at 20 ppm; grape, raisin at 12 ppm; and rice, hulls at 30 ppm. Based on the available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl are as high as 0.5 ppm in/on sugar beet roots and 30 ppm in/on sorghum grain stover, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for beet, sugar, roots at 0.5 ppm and sorghum, grain, stover at 30 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in/on apple, wet pomace at 15 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 70 ppm; citrus, oil at 20 ppm; grape, raisin at 12 ppm; rice, hulls at 30 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.5 ppm; and sorghum, grain, stover at 30 ppm. The Agency has determined that many of the existing carbaryl tolerances on individual commodities should be reassigned as crop group/subgroup tolerances because the Agency has the field trial residue data and/or tolerances in place for the representative commodities required to establish the corresponding crop group tolerances. Specifically, based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 0.1 ppm in/on almonds, chestnuts, hazelnuts, and pecans, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.1 ppm in/on nut, tree group 14, except walnuts replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 2 ppm in/on the roots of garden beet, carrot, horseradish, parsnip, radish, rutabaga, and salsify, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 2 ppm in/on vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 3 ppm in/on blueberry, the Agency determined that tolerance should be decreased to 3 ppm in/on bushberry subgroup 13-07B replacing the individual tolerance. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 5 ppm in/on eggplant, tomatoes and peppers, the Agency determined that tolerance should be decreased to 5 ppm in/on vegetable, fruiting, group 8 replacing the individual tolerances. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing and revising the individual tolerances to crop group tolerances in newly revised 40 CFR 180.169 (a)(1) for residues of the insecticide carbaryl in/on “almond, chestnut, hazelnut, and pecan from 1 ppm to nut, tree group 14, except walnut at 0.1 ppm”; “beet, garden, roots; carrot, roots; parsnip; radish; rutabaga; salsify, roots; and turnip, roots from 5 ppm, and horseradish from 10 ppm to vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato at 2 ppm;” blueberry from 10 ppm to bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3 ppm; and eggplant, pepper, and tomato from 10 ppm to vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 5 ppm. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 1.0 ppm in/on bean, cowpea, and lentil seed; the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 1.0 ppm on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicated residues of carbaryl do not exceed 60 ppm in/on cowpea forage, cowpea hay and field pea vines; the Agency determined the tolerance should be decreased to 60 ppm on vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 3 ppm in/on cucumber, melon, pumpkin, summer squash, and winter squash; the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 3 ppm on vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 3 ppm in/on celery and Swiss chard; the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 3 ppm on leaf petioles subgroup 4B replacing the individual tolerances. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing and revising tolerances in 180.169(a)(1) as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in /on “bean and lentil, seed from 10 ppm and cowpea from 5 ppm to pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 1.0 ppm;” cowpea, forage; cowpea, hay; and pea, field, vines from 100 ppm to vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 at 60 ppm: cucumber; melon; pumpkin; squash, summer; and squash, winter from 10 ppm to vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 3 ppm; and celery from 10 ppm and Swiss chard from 12 ppm to leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 3 ppm. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl as high as 75 ppm on the tops/greens of garden beets, salsify and turnips; the Agency determined that the tolerance should be increased to 75 ppm in/on vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops replacing the individual tolerances. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl as high at 2 ppm in/on on potatoes, the Agency has determined the tolerance should be increased to 2 ppm in/on vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato replacing the individual tolerance on potato. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and revising the individual tolerances to crop group tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169 (a)(1) as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in/on “beet, garden, tops and turnip, greens from 12 ppm and salsify, tops from 10 ppm to vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 except sugar beet tops at 75 ppm;” and “potato from 0.2(N) ppm to vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato at 2 ppm.” The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on livestock feeding studies and estimating a maximum dietary burden, residues of carbaryl do not exceed 0.5 ppm in fat, 1 ppm in milk, 1 ppm in meat, and 3 ppm in meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hog, horses, and sheep, the Agency has determined the tolerances should be increased to 0.5 ppm in fat, 1 ppm in milk, 1 ppm in meat, and 3 ppm in meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hog, horses, and sheep. Because of the increased tolerances on livestock meat byproducts at 3 ppm cover livestock liver and kidney residues, separate tolerances for livestock liver and kidney at 1 ppm are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and removing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2) as proposed for the combined carbaryl residues of concern in/on cattle, goat, hog, horse and sheep fat from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, horse and sheep meat from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm; cattle, goat, hog, horse and sheep meat byproducts from 0.1 to 3.0 ppm; and milk from 0.3 to 1.0 ppm; and remove the tolerances in/on cattle, goat, swine, horse and sheep liver and kidney at 1 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available field trial residue data that indicate residues do not exceed 50 ppm in/on alfalfa, 75 ppm in/on alfalfa hay, 5 ppm in/on bananas, 25 ppm in/on sugar beet tops, 50 ppm in/on clover forage, 70 ppm in/on clover hay, 0.1 ppm on sweet corn including field and pop corn grains, 20 ppm in/on field corn stover, 20 ppm in/on pop corn stover, 30 ppm in/on field corn forage, 3 ppm in/on cranberry, 0.5 ppm in/on flax seed, 15 ppm in/on grass hay, 1 ppm in/on millet proso grain (translating from wheat grain), 20 ppm in/on millet proso straw (translating from wheat straw), 4 ppm in/on okra, 0.05 ppm in/on peanut, 20 ppm in/on peanut hay, 0.1 ppm in/on pistachio, 5 ppm in/on prickly pear cactus fruit, 60 ppm in/on rice straw, 30 ppm in/on sorghum grain forage, 0.5 ppm in/on soybeans, 15 ppm in/on soybean forage and hay, 4 ppm in/on strawberry, 0.5 ppm in/on sunflower seed, 15 ppm in/on trefoil forage, 25 ppm in/on trefoil hay, 1 ppm in/on wheat grain, 30 in/on wheat hay (which should include 30 ppm in/on wheat forage) and 20 ppm in/on wheat straw, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be decreased to these residue levels that are not exceeded for each of these commodities. Field trial residue data also indicates that separate tolerances should be established for corn, field, grain at 0.02 ppm, corn, pop at 0.02 ppm, and wheat, forage at 30 ppm. The Agency is also revising commodity terminology to conform to current practice. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing, establishing, and revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in/on alfalfa from 100 to 50 ppm; alfalfa, hay from 100 to 75 ppm; banana from 10 to 5 ppm; beet, sugar, tops from 100 to 25 ppm; clover from 100 to clover, forage at 50 ppm; clover, hay from 100 to 70 ppm; “corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed” from 5 to 0.1 ppm; corn, stover at 100 ppm to corn, field, stover at 20 ppm and corn, pop, stover at 20 ppm; corn, forage at 100 ppm to corn, field, forage at 30 ppm; cranberry from 10 to 3 ppm; flax, seed from 5 to 0.5 ppm; grass, hay from 100 to 15 ppm; millet, proso, grain from 3 to 1 ppm; millet, proso, straw from 100 to 20 ppm; okra from 10 to 4 ppm; peanut from 5 to 0.05 ppm; peanut, hay from 100 to 20 ppm; pistachio from 1 to 0.1 ppm; prickly pear cactus, fruit from 12 ppm to cactus, fruit at 5 ppm; rice, straw from 100 to 60 ppm; sorghum, forage from 100 to sorghum, grain, forage at 30 ppm; soybean from 5 to soybean, seed at 0.5 ppm; soybean, forage from 100 to 15 ppm; soybean, hay from 100 to 15 ppm; strawberry from 10 to 4 ppm; sunflower, seed from 1 to 0.5 ppm; trefoil, forage from 100 to 15 ppm; trefoil, hay from 100 to 25 ppm; wheat, grain from 3 to 1 ppm; wheat, hay from 100 to 30; wheat, straw from 100 to 20 ppm, and establishing corn, field, grain at 0.02; corn, pop, grain at 0.02 ppm; and wheat, forage at 30 ppm. Based on the available field trial data that indicate carbaryl residues as high as 50 ppm in/on almond hulls, 15 ppm in/on asparagus, 21 ppm in/on cabbage, 215 ppm in/on sweet corn stover, 185 ppm in/on sweet corn forage, 22 ppm dandelion leaves, 22 ppm in/on parsley leaves, 15 ppm rice grain, 12 ppm in/on the representative commodities of pome fruit group 11, and 22 ppm in/on spinach, the Agency determined the tolerances should be increased to these levels. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in/on almond, hulls from 40 to 50 ppm; asparagus from 10 to 15 ppm; cabbage from 10 to 21 ppm; corn, stover from 100 ppm to corn, sweet, stover at 215 ppm; corn, forage from 100 ppm to corn, sweet, forage at 185 ppm; dandelion, leaves from 12 to 22 ppm; parsley, leaves from 12 to 22 ppm; rice, grain from 5 to 15 ppm; fruit, pome at 10 ppm to fruit, pome, group 11 at 12 ppm; spinach from 12 to 22 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. There are currently no active registrations with uses on cotton; therefore, the Agency has determined that tolerances for cotton, undelinted seed at 5 ppm should be revoked. Based on poultry feeding studies and the fact there are no longer direct uses on poultry and poultry houses, there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues [in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3)] in poultry and egg; therefore, the Agency has determined that tolerances for poultry meat and fat at 5 ppm and egg at 0.5 should be revoked. In the event there may be existing stocks of products bearing labels having uses on cotton and/or direct uses on poultry and poultry houses, the tolerances on cotton, poultry and egg will be revoked on October 31, 2009. The tolerance expiration date of October 31, 2009 should allow sufficient time for end users to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade. In order to consolidate the tolerances on poultry meat, fat and egg, the Agency is transferring the carbaryl tolerance on egg entry from 40 CFR 180.319 to 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2). Therefore, EPA proposes transferring the entry in 40 CFR 180.319 carbaryl residues of concern which corresponds with egg at 0.5 ppm to 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2) as proposed; revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(2) for carbaryl residues of concern in/on cotton, undelinted seed at 5 ppm on October 31, 2009; poultry, fat at 5 ppm on October 31, 2009; poultry, meat at 5 ppm on October 31, 2009; and newly transferred egg at 0.5 ppm on October 31, 2009; and removing the entry in 40 CFR 180.319 for carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) and its metabolite 1-naphthol, calculated as carbaryl which corresponds to egg at 0.5 ppm. The Agency has also determined that many of the existing carbaryl tolerances on individual commodities should be reassigned as crop group/subgroup tolerances because the Agency has the field trial residue data and/or tolerances in place for the representative commodities required to establish the corresponding crop group tolerances. Based on the available field trial data that indicate residues of carbaryl do not exceed 10 ppm in/on kale and mustard greens, the Agency has determined the tolerances for kale and mustard greens should be decreased to 10 ppm and removed since both commodities should be covered by vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except cabbage at 10 ppm tolerance. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169 as proposed for carbaryl residues of concern in/on apricot; cherry; nectarine; peach; plum, prune, fresh at 10 ppm to fruit, stone, group 12 at 10 ppm;” “blackberry, boysenberry, dewberry, loganberry, raspberry at 12 ppm to caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm;” “broccoli; Brussels sprouts; cabbage, Chinese; cauliflower; collards; kohlrabi; and mustard greens from 10 ppm and kale and mustard greens from 12 ppm to vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except cabbage at 10 ppm;” bean and pea (with pods) at 10 ppm to vegetable, legume, edible-podded subgroup 6A at 10 ppm; prickly pear cactus, pads to cactus, pads; sorghum, grain to sorghum, grain, grain; dill, fresh to dillweed, fresh leaves; fruit, citrus to fruit, citrus, group 10; and grass to grass, forage. The proposed tolerance actions herein for carbaryl, to implement the recommendations of the carbaryl RED, reflect use patterns in the U.S. which support a different tolerance than the Codex level on: pome fruit group 11; sugar beet root; vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato; field and sweet corn stover; cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep meat; rice grain, hulls, and straw; soybean, seed; sunflower seed; sorghum forage; tree nut group 14; wheat straw, grain, fodder and bran; because of differences in good agricultural practices. However, compatibility exists for stone fruit, and will exist based on this tolerance action for carbaryl residues in or on almond hulls; asparagus; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep meat byproducts (including liver and kidney); field corn/maize; sweet corn; wheat germ and flour. 3. *Diazinon* . Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of diazinon as high as 0.16 ppm in/on apricots, cherries, nectarines, peaches and plums, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be decreased to 0.2 ppm. There are no active registrations reflecting uses on field corn; therefore the Agency determined the tolerance in/on corn, field, forage is no longer needed. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of diazinon are less than 0.05 ppm in/on watercress, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.05 ppm. EPA is also revising the commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) for diazinon residues of concern in/on apricot from 0.5 to 0.20 ppm; cherry from 0.75 to cherry, sweet and cherry, tart at 0.2 ppm; nectarine from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm; peach from 0.7 to 0.2 ppm; plum, prune, fresh from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm; and watercress from 0.7 to 0.05 ppm; and revoking corn, field, forage at 40.0 ppm. Because there are no food use registrations in/on olives, the Agency has determined the tolerance is no longer needed. Also, based on available livestock studies indicating residues of diazinon in fat as high as 0.39 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance in/on cattle, fat should be decreased to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) for diazinon residues of concern in/on olive at 1.0 ppm and decreasing the tolerance in/on cattle fat from 0.7 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The Agency published a cancellation order on March 6, 2002 (67 FR 10196) (FRL-6826-2) as a follow up to a January 4, 2002 notice of receipt from the end-use products registrants, requesting cancellations and amendments of their diazinon product registrations terminating all indoor uses, certain agricultural uses and certain outdoor non-agricultural uses and limiting some registrations to specific regions. Specifically, in the cancellation order, the uses were amended for banana, cucumbers, celery, parsley, parsnips, peppers, potatoes, sweet potatoes, winter squash, summer squash, Swiss chard, and turnips (roots and greens) to regional uses. Therefore, the Agency has determined the corresponding tolerances should be transferred from permanent tolerances to regional tolerances. The uses were canceled which correspond to the tolerances on radicchio at 0.7 ppm; citrus at 0.7 ppm; sheep fat at 0.7 ppm; sheep, meat (fat basis) at 0.7 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts (fat basis) at 0.7 ppm. Therefore, the Agency has determined that these tolerances should be revoked, except for the tolerance on kiwi which is being retained for import purposes. EPA is also revising the commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA proposes transferring the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.153(c) for banana; cucumber; celery; parsley, leaves; parsnip; pepper; potato; potato, sweet; squash, summer; squash, winter; Swiss chard; turnip, roots; and turnip, greens to turnip, tops; revoking tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) for radicchio at 0.7 ppm; citrus at 0.7 ppm; sheep fat at 0.7 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts (fat basis) at 0.7 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts (fat basis) at 0.7 ppm; and revising a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) to add a footnote to kiwifruit that reads as follows: “There are no domestic registrations in/on kiwifruit as of March 6, 2002.” The Agency published a cancellation order December 6, 2006 (72 FR 40874) (FRL-8139-6) which resulted in the cancellation of certain uses of diazinon in the granular, liquid and/or wettable powder formulations on a variety of commodities; however, only uses on sugar beets, sweet corn, Chinese broccoli, Chinese cabbage, Chinese mustard, Chinese radish, grapes, hops, walnuts, and mushroom houses were canceled on all registrations such that the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153 for diazinon residues of concern in/on beet, sugar, roots at 0.5 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 10 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 40 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.7 ppm; grape at 0.75 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.75 ppm; mushroom at 0.75 ppm; walnuts at 0.5 ppm; radish, oriental, roots at 0.10 ppm; and radish, oriental, tops at 0.10 ppm. The registration for the use on almonds is only in California; therefore, the Agency has determined that the tolerance in/on almonds is a regional registration. Therefore, EPA proposes transferring the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) for almond at 0.5 ppm to 40 CFR 180.153(c); correcting the citation in 40 CFR 180.153(c) from 180.1(n) to 180.1(m); and correcting the CAS number from 33-41-5 to 333-41-5. Because field pea hay and vines are no longer recognized as raw agricultural commodities, field pea hay and vines are no longer considered to be a significant food/feed item; therefore, the associated tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) in/on pea, field, hay at 10.0 ppm and pea, field, vines at 25.0 ppm. There are currently no registrations for food and feed handling establishment uses outlined in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(2) and 40 CFR 180.153(a)(3). Therefore, EPA proposes removing the paragraphs in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(2) and 40 CFR 180.153(a)(3). The individual tolerances in/on blackberry, loganberry and raspberry are being consolidated under the caneberry subgroup at 0.75 ppm. EPA is revising the commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA proposes revising and increasing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a) for diazinon residues of concern from “blackberry at 0.5 ppm, loganberry at 0.75 ppm, and raspberry at 0.5 ppm to caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.75 ppm” and revising endive to escarole. The proposed tolerance actions herein for diazinon, to implement the recommendations of the diazinon RED, reflect use patterns in the U.S. which support a different tolerance than the Codex level on some commodities because of differences in good agricultural practices. However, compatibility exists for all of the citrus fruits, Chinese cabbage, grapes, mushrooms, olives, peaches, plums, and sheep byproducts and fat, based on the proposed reassessed U.S. tolerances implemented. 4. *Dicrotophos* . Based on available cotton field trial data that indicate residues of dicrotophos as high as 0.13 ppm in/on cotton seed and 1.8 ppm in/on cotton gin by products, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be increased to 0.2 ppm on cotton, undelinted seed and a tolerance should be established on cotton gin by products at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.299 for dicrotophos residues of concern in/on cotton, undelinted seed from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm and establishing a tolerance of in/on cotton gin by products at 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The Agency is also standardizing the subsections of the 40 CFR 180 and changing the section heading to dicrotophos. Therefore, EPA proposes revising 40 CFR 180.299 by establishing 4 subsections entitled: “(a) General,

(b)Section 18 emergency exemptions-reserved;

(c)Tolerances with regional registrations-reserved and

(d)Indirect or inadvertent residues - reserved and change the heading from dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N,Ndimethyl-cis-crotonamide to dicrotophos.” Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for dicrotophos. 5. *Fluometuron* . Tolerances are currently established for negligible residues of the herbicide fluometuron (1,1-dimethyl-3-(α, α, α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea) in 40 CFR 180.229 for plant commodities. Based on reevaluation of the plant and animal metabolism data, the Agency determined that the regulated residues of concern in/on plants consist of the parent compound, fluometuron, and the metabolite, trifluoromethylaniline (TFMA); and in animal tissue the regulated residues consist of the parent compound, the hydroxylated metabolites [CGA-236431 (1-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)urea), CGA-236432 (1-methyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethylphenyl)urea), CGA-13211 (1,1-dimethyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-triflurormethylphenyl)urea)], and their conjugates (determined as TFMS). The chemical name for fluometuron should be corrected to the CAS name (N,N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea) in the tolerance expression. Therefore, EPA proposes revising the tolerance expression for plants in 40 CFR 180.229(a)(1) and 180.229(d) for the combined residues of the herbicide fluometuron (N,N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea) and its metabolite trifluoromethylaniline

(TFMA)determined as TFMA. EPA also proposes revising the tolerance expression for livestock in 40 CFR 180.229(a)(2) for the combined residues of the herbicide fluometuron (N,N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea), its metabolites determined as TFMA, and the hydroxylated metabolites [CGA-236431 (1-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)urea), CGA-236432 (1-methyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethylphenyl)urea), CGA-13211 (1,1-dimethyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethylphenyl)urea)]. Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of fluometuron as high as 0.58 ppm in or on cotton and 3.1 ppm in/on cotton gin byproducts, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be increased in/on cotton, undelinted seed to 1.0 ppm and a tolerance should be established in/on cotton gin by products at 3.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.229(a)(1) for the combined residues of fluometuron and its metabolites of concern in/on cotton, undelinted seed from 0.1 ppm to 1.0 ppm and establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.229(a)(1) in/on cotton, gin byproducts at 3.5 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on the livestock feeding studies that indicate residues of fluometuron as high as 0.041 ppm in liver; 0.0096 ppm in kidney; 0.0041 ppm in milk; and 0.0315 ppm egg, poultry meat, fat and meat byproducts, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established in cattle, goat, horse, hog, sheep and poultry meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm, in poultry meat and fat at 0.1 ppm and in milk at 0.02 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.229(a)(2) for the combined residues of fluometuron and its metabolites of concern in cattle, meat byproducts; egg; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm and milk at 0.02 ppm. Based on the available rotational crop field trial data that indicate residues of fluometuron as high as 0.46 ppm in/on cereal grains, 2.8 ppm in cereal grain forage, 5.8 ppm in/on cereal grain fodder and straw, 0.1 ppm in/on peanut, 1.7 ppm in/on soybean seed, 2.4 ppm in/on soybean forage, 2.7 ppm in/on soybean hay, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established on grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.5 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, group 16 at 3.0 ppm; grain, cereal, fodder and straw group 16 at 6.0 ppm; peanut at 0.1 ppm; peanut, hay at 4.0 ppm; soybean, seed at 2.0 ppm; soybean, forage at 3.0 ppm; and soybean, hay at 3.0 ppm for the inadvertent and indirect residues of fluometuron. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.229(d) for the combined residues of fluometuron and its metabolites of concern in grain, cereal, group 15 at 0.5 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, group 16 at 3.0 ppm; grain, cereal, fodder and straw, group 16 at 6.0 ppm; peanut at 0.1 ppm; peanut, hay at 4.0 ppm; soybean, seed at 2.0 ppm; soybean, forage at 3.0 ppm; and soybean, hay at 3.0 ppm. Based on the available food processing studies that indicate residues of fluometuron as high as 0.1 ppm (concentration factor of 1.7X) in peanut meal; 0.25 ppm (3.2X) in rice hulls; and 0.38 ppm (1.8X) in wheat milled byproducts, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established on peanut, meal at 0.2 ppm; rice, hulls at 1.0 ppm; and wheat, milled byproducts at 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.229(d) for the combined residues of fluometuron and its metabolites of concern in peanut, meal at 0.2 ppm; rice, hulls at 1.0 ppm; and wheat, milled byproducts at 1.0 ppm. Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for fluometuron. 6. *Formetanate hydrochloride* . Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of formetanate hydrochloride as high as 0.43 ppm in/on apples and pears; 0.98 ppm in/on grapefruits and oranges; <0.60 ppm in/on lemons; <0.03 ppm (the limit of quantitation) in/on tangerines and limes; and limited data at <0.03 ppm in/on nectarines and peaches; the Agency determined that the tolerances should be decreased to 0.50 ppm in/on apple and pear; 1.5 ppm in/on grapefruit and orange, sweet; 0.03 ppm in/on lime and tangerine; 0.60 ppm in/on lemon; 0.40 ppm in/on nectarine and peach and a tolerance be established on tangelo at 0.03 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.276(a) for residues of formetanate hydrochloride in/on apple from 3 to 0.50 ppm; grapefruit from 4 to 1.5 ppm; lemon from 4 to 0.60 ppm; lime from 4 to 0.03 ppm; nectarine 4 to 0.40 ppm; orange, sweet from 4 to 1.5 ppm; peach from 5 to 0.40 ppm; pear from 3 to 0.50 ppm; and tangerine from 4 to 0.03 ppm and establishing a tolerance in/on tangelo at 0.03 ppm. Based on the field trial and processing studies on apples that indicate the highest average field trial residues are 0.38 ppm and a 4X concentration factor in wet pomace, the Agency determined a tolerance in/on apple, wet pomace should be established at 1.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.276(a) for residues of formetanate hydrochloride in/on apple, wet pomace at 1.5 ppm. Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for formetanate hydrochloride. 7. *Glyphosate* . The Agency proposed changes in tolerances for glyphosate in the **Federal Register** notice published on June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32899) (FRL-8062-7), which include harmonization with some Codex tolerances. The Agency received public comment from Monsanto Company generally agreeing with the proposed tolerance changes to 40 CFR 180.364 for glyphosate. However, Monsanto alerted the Agency of more recent changes to glyphosate MRLs finalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July of 2006. Monsanto provided a detailed list of suggested changes to the U.S. tolerances established on glyphosate to achieve better alignment with the newly established Codex MRLs. In response to this comment, the Agency agreed to consider Monsanto's recommendations for harmonization with Codex in a future proposal. The Agency has now determined that the following commodities can be harmonized with Codex MRLs: Cereal grain crop group 15, cotton seed, corn (maize), rape seed, canola seed, and liver and kidney commodities of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep. The current tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on “grain, cereal, group 15” is 0.1 parts per million (ppm), but excludes the major crop grains barley, field corn, grain sorghum, oat and wheat, and covers the minor crop grains buckwheat, millet, popcorn, rice, rye, sweet corn, teosinte, triticale, and wild rice. Individual tolerances currently exist for barley, grain (20 ppm); corn, field, grain (1.0 ppm); sorghum, grain, grain (15 ppm); oat, grain (20 ppm); and wheat, grain (5.0 ppm). In an effort to achieve compatibility with Codex, the Agency has determined that the glyphosate tolerance for “grain, cereal, group 15” should be inclusive of the major crop grains (barley, sorghum, oat, and wheat) the minor grain crops (buckwheat millet, rye, teosinte, and triticale), and increased to 30 ppm. Individual tolerances should be established for the minor crop grains, popcorn, rice, sweet corn, and wild rice, each at 0.1 ppm, and the tolerance for field corn increased from 1.0 to 5.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes to amend tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 for glyphosate in/on “grain, cereal, group 15, except barley, field corn, sorghum, oat and wheat” to “grain, cereal, group 15, except field corn, popcorn, rice, sweet corn and rice, wild” and increase the tolerance to 30 ppm; and to revoke the individual tolerances for barley, grain at 20 ppm; oat, grain at 20 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 15 ppm; wheat, grain at 5 ppm; wheat middlings at 20 ppm; wheat, shorts at 20 ppm; and wheat, bran at 20 ppm; and establish individual tolerances for corn, sweet, grain at 0.1 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1 ppm; rice, wild at 0.1 ppm; and increase the tolerance for corn, field, grain from 1 ppm to 5 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. In order to further harmonize with Codex, the Agency has determined that the tolerances for glyphosate residues in/on the following commodities should be increased: Cotton, undelinted seed from 35 ppm to 40 ppm; rapeseed, seed from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; canola, seed from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; and and that the tolerance for canola, meal at 15 ppm and rapeseed, meal at 15 ppm should be revoked, as they will be covered by the canola, seed and rapeseed, seed tolerances at 20 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 for the glyphosate residues of concern in/on cotton, undelinted seed from 35 ppm to 40 ppm; rapeseed, seed from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; canola, seed from 10 ppm to 20 ppm; and revoking rapeseed, meal at 15 ppm and canola, meal at 15 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Currently, separate tolerances exist for the liver of cattle, goat, horse, sheep and hog at 0.5 ppm, and for the kidney of each of these livestock animals at 4 ppm. In an effort to harmonize with Codex, the Agency has determined that the individual tolerances for liver and kidney should be combined into one commodity defined as meat byproducts for each of the livestock animals, cattle, goat, horse, sheep and hog, and increased to 5 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 for residues of glyphosate in or on cattle, kidney at 4.0 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.5 ppm; goat, kidney at 4.0 ppm; goat, liver at 0.5 ppm; horse, kidney at 4.0 ppm; horse, liver at 0.5 ppm; sheep, kidney at 4.0 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.5 ppm; hog, kidney at 4.0 ppm; and hog, liver at 0.5 ppm; and establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 for cattle, meat byproducts at 5 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 5 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 5 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 5 ppm; and hog, meat byproducts at 5 ppm. The Agency has determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. In the **Federal Register** published December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76180) (FRL-8105-9), tolerances for residues of glyphosate in or on sunflower, seed and safflower, seed were increased from 0.1 to 85 ppm; however, duplicate tolerances for these commodities were erroneously published in 40 CFR 180.364

(a)as sunflower at 85 ppm and sunflower, seed at 0.1 ppm; and safflower at 85 ppm and safflower, seed at 0.1 ppm. The correct terminology for these commodities is “sunflower, seed” and “safflower, seed.” Also, in the same **Federal Register** Notice, a tolerance for the revised commodity definition “vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean and pea, dry” was established at 5.0 ppm, but this tolerance was published in 40 CFR 180.364(a) in addition to the existing tolerance for the commodity “vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean” at 5.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes to correct these errors by revoking the incorrect tolerances in 40 CR 180.364(a) for sunflower, seed at 0.1 ppm; safflower, seed at 0.1 ppm; and “vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean” at 5.0 ppm; and correcting the terminology for sunflower to “sunflower, seed” at 85 ppm and safflower to “safflower, seed” at 85 ppm. There are a number of Codex MRLs for glyphosate for which harmonization with a U.S. tolerance is not possible at this time. In the case of fodder, hay and/or straw commodities of alfalfa, barley, bean, grasses, maize, oat, pea, sorghum, and wheat, the U.S. tolerances are determine on a “wet weight” basis where as the Codex MRLs are determined on a “dry weight” basis, and are, therefore, not comparable. Sugarcane molasses, having a U.S. tolerance for glyphosate of 30 ppm, could not be harmonized to the lower Codex MRL of 10 ppm due to the concentration of the glyphosate residues demonstrated by processing data. Some U.S. glyphosate tolerances could not be harmonized because the Codex MRL is based on the individual commodity and the U.S. tolerance is a crop group tolerance (e.g. vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean.) which is higher to cover all commodities in the group. The U.S. tolerance for glyphosate in/on banana could not be lowered to harmonize with Codex due to differing use patterns. 8. *Metolachlor* . Tolerances for metolachlor in/on spinach at 0.3 ppm, grass forage at 10 ppm, grass hay at 0.2 ppm and tomato at 0.1 ppm expired on 12/31/01 and tomato expired on 6/30/02. Based on additional new field trial data that indicate residues as high as 8.4 ppm in/on grass forage, 0.11 ppm in/on grass hay, 0.38 ppm in/on spinach and 0.08 ppm in/on tomatoes, the Agency has determined that permanent tolerances should be established in /on grass, forage at 10 ppm; grass, hay at 0.20 ppm; spinach at 0.50 ppm and tomato at 0.10 ppm. The establishment of these tolerances was inadvertently omitted from the proposal of August 8, 2008 (72 FR 44439) (FRL-8138-8). In that proposal the Agency also revised the terminology for the “seed and pod vegetables (except soybean) crop group” which includes okra and dill commodities to the new terminology, “vegetable legume crop group” which does not include dill and okra; therefore, at that time, separate tolerances should have been proposed for okra at 0.50 ppm and dill at 0.50 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) for the combined metolachlor residues of concern in/on grass, forage at 10 ppm; grass, hay at 0.20 ppm; spinach at 0.50 ppm; tomato at 0.10 ppm; dill at 0.50 ppm and okra at 0.50 ppm. 9. *Napropamide* . The sole registrant for napropamide requested the cancellation of the use of napropamide on the following commodities: Pistachio, grapefruit, lemon, orange, tangerine, nectarine, apricot, cherry, peach, plum, prune, apple, pear, fig, avocado, pomegranate, artichoke, and olives as published in the **Federal Register** on April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24687) (FRL-8059-2). Based on the cancellation of these uses on U.S. registrations, the Agency has determined the tolerances for artichoke, globe; avocado; fig; fruit, citrus; fruit, pome; fruit, stone; olive; pistachio; and pomegranate (the only tolerance in 40 CFR 180.328(b)) should be revoked on April 26, 2009. This expiration/revocation date should provide sufficient time for end users to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade. Also, there have been no registrations with uses on cucurbit vegetables for some time; therefore the Agency has determined that the tolerance in/on vegetables, cucurbit, group 9 should be revoked. Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.328(a) on the following commodities: Artichoke, globe; avocado; fig; fruit, citrus; fruit, pome; fruit, stone; olive; and pistachio each with an expiration/revocation date of April 26, 2009; the pomegranate tolerance in 40 CFR 180.328(b) with an expiration/revocation date of April 26, 2009; and revoking vegetables, cucurbit, group 9 on the date of publication of the final rule. Currently, tolerances are established for the negligible residues

(N)of the herbicide N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy) propionamide. The negligible residue term and designation indicating negligible residues is no longer in accordance with Agency practice and should be removed. The common chemical name for N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy) propionamide is napropamide and should be included in the tolerance expression. Lastly, the section should be revised to include the subsections for section 18 emergency exemptions and indirect or inadvertent residues and change subsection

(b)designation to

(c)for regional registrations. Therefore, the Agency proposes revising the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.328(a) to regulate the herbicide napropamide (N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy) propionamide in or on food commodities and revising the subsections as follows: “(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions - reserved,

(c)tolerances with regional registrations -reserved and

(d)indirect or inadvertent residues -reserved.” The Agency is updating commodity terminology to correspond to current practice. Currently, there is a tolerance in place for small fruit at 0.1 ppm in 40 CFR 180.328(a) which is considered obsolete and should be revised to correspond with current Agency commodity terminology. The current commodity terminology for small fruit is berry group 13 and cranberry, strawberry and grape (which were covered in the small fruit group, but not included in the berry group). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.328(a) for residues of the herbicide napropamide from small fruit at 0.1 ppm to berry, group 13 at 0.1 ppm; coffee, bean, green to coffee, green bean; and mint to peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops; and establish tolerances for cranberry, grape, and strawberry each at 0.1 ppm; revise vegetable, fruiting to vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and nut to nut, tree, group 14. Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for napropamide. 10. *Norflurazon* . Based on the available feeding studies in livestock where residues of norflurazon were estimated less than 0.5 ppm in liver, the Agency determined tolerances should be established for cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep liver at 0.50 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.356(a) for the norflurazon residues of concern in/on cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep, liver from 0.25 ppm to 0.50 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. 11. *Pyrazon* . Based on available crop field trial data that indicate residues of pyrazon as high as 0.79 ppm in/on garden beet roots, 4.64 ppm in/on garden beet tops, 0.14 ppm in/on sugar beet roots, 1.99 ppm in/on sugar beet tops 0.02 ppm in milk, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be increased to 0.9 ppm in/on beet, garden, roots; 7.0 ppm in/on beet, garden, tops; 0.2 ppm in/on beet, sugar, roots; 3.0 ppm in/on beet, sugar, tops; and 0.02 ppm in milk. The terminology negligible residues

(N)associated with tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316 is no longer applicable and a terminology the Agency is no longer using. Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(a) for the combined residues of pyrazon and its metabolites in/on beet, garden, roots from 0.1(N) to 0.9 ppm; beet, garden, tops from 1 ppm to 7.0 ppm; beet, sugar, roots from 0.1(N) to 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, tops from 1 ppm to 3.0 ppm; and milk from 0.01(N) ppm to 0.02 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available crop field trial data and processing data that indicate residues of pyrazon as high as 0.2 ppm and a concentration factor of 6x in sugar beet molasses, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established for beet, sugar, molasses at 1.5 ppm. Based on the available feeding studies and the estimated maximum dietary burden in livestock that indicate pyrazon residues as high as the level of quantitation, the Agency has determined tolerances should be established at the combined levels of quantitation of pyrazon and its metabolites in cattle, goat, horse, and sheep fat, meat, and meat byproducts (except liver) at 0.10 ppm. Based on the available feeding studies and estimated maximum dietary burden in livestock where residues of pyrazon were estimated as high as 0.123 ppm in liver, the Agency determined tolerances should be established for cattle, goat, horse, and sheep liver at 0.15 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(a) for the combined residues of pyrazon and its metabolites in/on beet, sugar, molasses at 1.5 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.10 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.15 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.10 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.10 ppm; goat, fat at 0.10 ppm; goat, liver at 0.15 ppm; goat, meat at 0.10 ppm; goat, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.10 ppm; horse, fat at 0.10 ppm; horse, liver at 0.15 ppm; horse, meat at 0.10 ppm; horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.10 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.10 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.15 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.10 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.10 ppm. Based on available rotational crop field trial data that indicate the highest average field trial residues of pyrazon as high as 0.17 ppm wheat forage, 0.13 ppm in wheat hay, <0.10 ppm in wheat straw, 0.30 ppm in soybean forage and hay, and 0.30 ppm in field corn forage and stover, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for the inadvertent and indirect residues of pyrazon in wheat, forage at 0.3 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.2 ppm; wheat straw at 0.1 ppm; soybean forage and hay at 0.5 ppm; and field corn forage and stover at 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(d) for the combined residues of pyrazon and its metabolites in/on wheat, forage at 0.3 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.2 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.1 ppm; soybean, forage at 0.5 ppm; soybean, hay at 0.5 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.5 ppm; and corn, field, stover at 0.5 ppm. Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for pyrazon. 12. *Tau-Fluvalinate* . A tolerance is currently established in 40 CFR 180.427(a) for residues of fluvalinate, (alpha RS , 2R)-fluvalinate [(RS)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (R)-2-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)anilino]-3-methylbutanoate” in/on honey at 0.05 ppm. “Fluvalinate” is the common name for the racemic mixture of the 4 isomers of cyano-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl N-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-valinate (CAS name). “Tau-fluvalinate” is the term for the half resolved mixture (2 of the 4 isomers) and is the regulated residue. The tolerance expression should be corrected to reflect the correct common name of tau-fluvalinate and the CAS name. Additionally, based on available field trial data that indicate residues of tau-fluvalinate as high as 0.015 ppm in/on honey, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.02 ppm. The registrant submitted a comment to docket announcing the RED requesting the tolerance be maintained at 0.05 ppm; however, they later withdrew the request. Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing the tolerance 40 CFR 180.427(a) in/on honey from 0.05 to 0.02 ppm and revising the tolerance expression to read as follows: “Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide tau-fluvalinate [cyano-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl N-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-D-valinate].” Currently, there are no Codex MRLs in place for tau-fluvalinate. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.* ). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standard of FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs and TREDs for benfluralin, carbaryl, diazinon, dicrotophos, fluometuron, formetanate-hydrochloride, metolachlor, napropamide, norflurazon, pyrazon and tau-fluvalinate. Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA for glyphosate and made a safety finding which reassessed its tolerances according to the FFDCA standard, maintaining them when new tolerances were established as noted in Unit II.A. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FFDCA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities. Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this document and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of concern in or on those commodities. C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that the tolerance actions become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** unless otherwise indicated (i.e. napropamide and carbaryl). The tolerances proposed for revocation in this document are associated with uses that have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to section 408(1)(5) of FFDCA, as established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international Maximum Residue Limits

(MRLs)established by the Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level in a notice published for public comment. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs, and in the Residue Chemistry document which supports the RED and TRED, as mentioned in Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this proposed rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit II.A. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist)] from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 8, 2008. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180 —[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.153 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)(1); and paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million Almond, hulls 3.0 Apple 0.50 Apricot 0.20 Bean, lima 0.50 Bean, snap, succulent 0.50 Beet, garden, roots 0.75 Blueberry 0.50 Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 0.75 Carrot, roots 0.75 Cattle, fat 0.5 Cherry, sweet 0.20 Cherry, tart 0.20 Cranberry 0.50 Escarole 0.7 Fig 0.50 Ginseng 0.75 Hazelnut 0.50 Kiwifruit1 0.75 Lettuce 0.7 Melon 0.75 Nectarine 0.20 Onion, bulb 0.75 Onion, green 0.75 Peach 0.20 Pear 0.50 Pea, succulent 0.50 Pineapple 0.50 Plum, prune, fresh 0.20 Radish 0.50 Rutabaga 0.75 Spinach 0.70 Strawberry 0.50 Tomato 0.75 Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.70 Watercress 0.05 1 There are no domestic registrations for kiwifruit as of March 6, 2002.

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in §180.1(m), are established for residues of the insecticide diazinon (O, O-diethyl O-(6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-pyrimidinyl]- phosphorothioate; CAS Reg. No. 333-41-5) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Almond 0.50 Banana 0.20 Celery 0.70 Cucumber 0.75 Parsley, leaves 0.75 Parsnip 0.50 Pepper 0.5 Potato 0.10 Potato, sweet 0.10 Squash, summer 0.50 Squash, winter 0.75 Swiss chard 0.70 Turnip, roots 0.50 Turnip, tops 0.75 3. Section 180.169 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and

(c)to read as follows: § 180.169 Carbaryl; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) *per se* in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Alfalfa 50 None Alfalfa, hay 75 None Almond, hulls 50 None Apple, wet pomace 15 None Asparagus 15 None Banana 5.0 None Beet, sugar, tops 25 None Beet, sugar, roots 0.5 None Bushberry subgroup 13-07B 3.0 None Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 12.0 None Cabbage 21 None Cactus, fruit 5.0 None Cactus, pads 12 None Citrus, oil 20 None Clover, forage 50 None Clover, hay 70 None Corn, field, forage 30 None Corn, field, grain 0.02 None Corn, field, stover 20 None Corn, pop, grain 0.02 None Corn, pop, stover 20 None Corn, sweet, forage 185 None Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.1 None Corn, sweet, stover 215 None Cotton, undelinted seed 5.0 10/31/09 Cranberry 3.0 None Dandelion, leaves 22 None Endive 10 None Flax, seed 0.5 None Fruit, citrus, group 10 10 None Fruit, pome, group 11 12 None Fruit, stone, group 12 10 None Grain, aspirated fractions 70 None Grape 10 None Grape, raisin 12 None Grass, forage 100 None Grass, hay 15 None Leaf petiole subgroup 4B 3.0 None Lettuce 10 None Millet, proso, grain 1.0 None Millet, proso, staw 20 None Nut, tree group 14, except walnut 0.1 None Okra 4.0 None Olive 10 None Oyster 0.25 None Parsley, leaves 22 None Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 1.0 None Peanut 0.05 None Peanut, hay 20 None Pineapple 2.0 None Pistachio 0.1 None Rice, grain 15 None Rice, hulls 30 None Rice, straw 60 None Sorghum grain, forage 30 None Sorghum grain, grain 10 None Sorghum, grain, stover 30 None Soybean, seed 0.5 None Soybean, forage 15 None Soybean, hay 15 None Spinach 22 None Strawberry 4.0 None Sunflower, seed 0.5 None Sweet potato, roots 0.2 None Trefoil, forage 15 None Trefoil, hay 25 None Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5, except cabbage 10 None Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 3.0 None Vegetable, foliage legume, group 7 60 None Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 5.0 None Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops 75 None Vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A 10 None Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet and sweet potato 2.0 None Walnut 1.0 None Wheat, forage 30 None Wheat, grain 1.0 None Wheat, hay 30 None Wheat, straw 20 None

(2)Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) including its metabolites 1-naphthol (naphthyl-sulfate), 5,6-dihydrodihydroxycarbaryl and 5,6-dihydrodihydroxy naphthol, calculated as 1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate and the free and conjugated residues of carbaryl: 5,6-dihydro-5,6-dihydroxy carbaryl, and 5-methoxy-6-hydroxy carbaryl in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Cattle, fat 0.5 None Cattle, meat 1.0 None Cattle, meat byproducts 3.0 None Egg 0.5 10/30/09 Goat, fat 0.5 None Goat, meat 1.0 None Goat, meat byproducts 3.0 None Hog, fat 0.5 None Hog, meat 1.0 None Hog, meat byproducts 3.0 None Horse, fat 0.5 None Horse, meat 1.0 None Horse, meat byproducts 3.0 None Milk 1.0 None Poutry, fat 5.0 10/30/09 Poultry,meat 5.0 10/30/09 Sheep, fat 0.5 None Sheep, meat 1.0 None Sheep, meat byproducts 3.0 None

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances are established for the residues of the insecticide carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) per se in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Dillweed, fresh leaves 0.2 4. Section 180.208 is amended by revising the heading and paragraph

(a)is to read as follows: § 180.208 Benfluralin; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide benfluralin, (N-Butyl-N-ethyl-ααα-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 0.05 Alfalfa, hay 0.05 Clover, forage 0.05 Clover, hay 0.05 Lettuce 0.05 Trefoil, forage 0.05 Trefoil, hay 0.05 5. Section 180.229 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)and adding text to paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 180.229 Fluometuron; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide fluometuron (N, N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea) and its metabolite trifluoromethylaniline

(TFMA)determined as TFMA in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cotton, gin byproducts 3.5 Cotton, undelinted seed 1.0

(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide fluometuron (N,N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea), its metabolites determined as TFMA, and the hydroxylated metabolites [CGA-236431 (1-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)urea), CGA-236432 (1-methyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethylphenyl)urea), CGA-13211 (1,1-dimethyl-3-(4-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethylphenyl)urea)] in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Egg 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Milk 0.02 Poultry, fat 0.1 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide fluometuron (N, N-dimethyl-N'-(3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl)urea) and its metabolite trifluoromethylaniline

(TFMA)determined as TFMA in or on the following food commodities. Commodity Parts per million Grain, cereal, group 15 0.5 Grain, cereal, forage group 16 3.0 Grain, cereal, fodder, and straw, group 16 6.0 Peanut 0.1 Peanut, hay 4.0 Peanut, meal 0.2 Soybean, seed 2.0 Soybean, forage 3.0 Soybean, hay 3.0 Rice, hulls 1.0 Wheat, milled byproducts 1.0 6. Section 180.276 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.276 Formetanate hydrochloride; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Apple 0.50 Apple, wet pomace 1.5 Grapefruit 1.5 Lemon 0.60 Lime 0.03 Nectarine 0.40 Orange, sweet 1.5 Peach 0.40 Pear 0.50 Tangelo 0.03 Tangerine 0.03 7. Section 180.299 is revised to read as follows: § 180.299 Dicrotophos; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide dicrotophos (dimethyl phosphate of 3-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyl-cis-crotonamide) in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cotton, gin by products 2.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 8. Section 180.316 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)and by adding text to paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 180.316 Pyrazon; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Beet, garden, roots 0.9 Beets, garden, tops 7.0 Beets, sugar, molasses 1.5 Beets, sugar, roots 0.2 Beets, sugar, tops 3.0 Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, liver 0.15 Cattle, meat 0.10 Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver 0.10 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, liver 0.15 Goat, meat 0.10 Goat, meat byproducts, except liver 0.10 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, liver 0.15 Horse, meat 0.10 Horse, meat byproducts, except liver 0.10 Milk 0.02 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, liver 0.15 Sheep, meat 0.10 Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver 0.10

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . Tolerances are established for combined residues of the herbicide pyrazon (5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone) and its metabolites (calculated as pyrazon) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Corn, field, forage 0.5 Corn, field, stover 0.5 Soybean, forage 0.5 Soybean, hay 0.5 Wheat, forage 0.3 Wheat, hay 0.2 Wheat, straw 0.1 § 180.319 [Amended] 9. Section 180.319 is amended in the table by removing the entry for Carbaryl (1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate) and its metabolites 1-naphthol, calculated as carbaryl. 10. Section 180.328 is revised to read as follows: § 180.328 Napropamide; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the herbicide napropamide (N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy) propionamide in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Almond, hulls 0.1 None Artichoke, globe 0.1 4/26/09 Asparagus 0.1 None Avocado 0.1 4/26/09 Basil 0.1 None Berry group 13 0.1 None Cranberry 0.1 None Coffee, green bean 0.1 None Fig 0.1 4/26/09 Fruit, citrus 0.1 4/26/09 Fruit, pome 0.1 4/26/09 Fruit, stone 0.1 4/26/09 Grape 0.1 None Kiwifruit 0.1 None Marjoram 0.1 None Nut, tree, group 14 0.1 None Olive 0.1 4/26/09 Peppermint, tops 0.1 None Persimmon 0.1 None Pistachio 0.1 04/26/09 Rhubarb 0.1 None Rosemary 0.1 None Savory, summer 0.1 None Savory, winter 0.1 None Spearmint, tops 0.1 None Strawberry 0.1 None Sweet potato, roots 0.1 None Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 0.1 None Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.1 None

(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]

(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances are established for the herbicide napropamide (N,N-diethyl-2-(1-napthalenyloxy) propionamide in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date Pomegranate 0.1 4/26/09

(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 11. Section 180.356 is amended in paragraph

(a)by revising the tolerance level for the commodities listed in the table to read to as follows: § 180.356 Norflurazon; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Cattle, liver 0.50 * * * * * Goat, liver 0.50 * * * * * Hog, liver 0.50 * * * * * Horse, liver 0.50 * * * * * Sheep, liver 0.50 * * * * * 12. Section 180.364 is amended by revising the table in paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . * * * Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.2 Alfalfa, seed 0.5 Almond, hulls 25 Aloe vera 0.5 Ambarella 0.2 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 400 Artichoke, globe 0.2 Asparagus 0.5 Atemoya 0.2 Avocado 0.2 Bamboo, shoots 0.2 Banana 0.2 Barley, bran 30 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 25 Beet, sugar, roots 10 Beet, sugar, tops 10 Berry group 13 0.2 Betelnut 1.0 Biriba 0.2 Blimbe 0.2 Borage, seed 0.1 Breadfruit 0.2 Cacao bean 0.2 Cactus, fruit 0.5 Cactus, pads 0.5 Canistel 0.2 Canola, seed 20 Cattle, meat byproducts 5.0 Chaya 1.0 Cherimoya 0.2 Citrus, dried pulp 1.5 Coconut 0.1 Coffee, bean 1.0 Corn, field, forage 6.0 Corn, field, grain 5.0 Corn, pop, grain 0.1 Corn, sweet, grain 0.1 Cotton, gin byproducts 175 Cotton, undelinted seed 40 Cranberry 0.2 Crambe, seed 0.1 Custard apple 0.2 Date 0.2 Dokudami 2.0 Durian 0.2 Egg 0.05 Epazote 1.3 Feijoa 0.2 Fig 0.2 Fish 0.25 Flax, meal 8.0 Flax, seed 4.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.5 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.2 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.2 Galangal, roots 0.2 Ginger, white, flower 0.2 Goat, meat byproducts 5.0 Gourd, buffalo, seed 0.1 Governor's plum 0.2 Gow kee, leaves 0.2 Grain, aspirated fractions 100 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except corn forage 100 Grain, cereal, group 15 except rice, wild rice, field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn 30 Grape 0.2 Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17 300 Guava 0.2 Herbs subgroup 19A 0.2 Hog, meat byproducts 5.0 Hop, dried cones 7.0 Horse, meat byproducts 5.0 Ilama 0.2 Imbe 0.2 Imbu 0.2 Jackfruit 0.2 Jaboticaba 0.2 Jojoba, seed 0.1 Juneberry 0.2 Kava, roots 0.2 Kenaf, forage 200 Kiwifruit 0.2 Lesquerella, seed 0.1 Leucaena, forage 200 Lingonberry 0.2 Longan 0.2 Lychee 0.2 Mamey apple 0.2 Mango 0.2 Mangosteen 0.2 Marmaladebox 0.2 Meadowfoam, seed 0.1 Mioga, flower 0.2 Mustard, seed 0.1 Noni 0.20 Nut, pine 1.0 Nut, tree, group 14 1.0 Okra 0.5 Olive 0.2 Oregano, Mexican, leaves 2.0 Palm heart 0.2 Palm heart, leaves 0.2 Palm, oil 0.1 Papaya 0.2 Papaya, mountain 0.2 Passionfruit 0.2 Pawpaw 0.2 Pea, dry 8.0 Peanut 0.1 Peanut, hay 0.5 Pepper leaf, fresh leaves 0.2 Peppermint, tops 200 Perilla, tops 1.8 Persimmon 0.2 Pineapple 0.1 Pistachio 1.0 Pomegranate 0.2 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 1.0 Pulasan 0.2 Quinoa, grain 5.0 Rambutan 0.2 Rapeseed, seed 20 Rice, grain 0.1 Rice, grain, wild 0.1 Rose apple 0.2 Safflower, seed 85 Salal 0.2 Sapodilla 0.2 Sapote, black 0.2 Sapote, mamey 0.2 Sapote, white 0.2 Sesame, seed 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 5.0 Shellfish 3.0 Soursop 0.2 Soybean, forage 100 Soybean, hay 200 Soybean, hulls 100 Soybean, seed 20 Spanish lime 0.2 Spearmint, tops 200 Spice subgroup 19B 7.0 Star apple 0.2 Starfruit 0.2 Stevia, dried leaves 1.0 Strawberry 0.2 Sugar apple 0.2 Sugarcane, cane 2.0 Sugarcane, molasses 30 Sunflower, seed 85 Surinam cherry 0.2 Tamarind 0.2 Tea, dried 1.0 Tea, instant 7.0 Teff, grain 5.0 Ti, leaves 0.2 Ti, roots 0.2 Ugli fruit 0.5 Vegetable, leafy, brassica, group 5 0.2 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.2 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.5 Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.1 Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.2 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops 0.2 Vegetable, legume, group 6 except soybean and pea, dry 5.0 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.2 Wasabi, roots 0.2 Water spinach, tops 0.2 Watercress, upland 0.2 Wax jambu 0.2 Yacon, tuber 0.2 13. Section 180.368 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* .

(1)* * * Commodity Parts per million * * * * * Dill 0.50 * * * * * Grass, forage 10 Grass, hay 0.20 * * * * * Okra 0.50 * * * * * Spinach 0.50 * * * * * Tomato 0.10 * * * * * 14. Section 180.427 is amended by revising the heading and paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 180.427 Tau-fluvalinate; tolerances for residues.

(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide tau-fluvalinate [cyano-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl N-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-D-valinate] in/on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Honey 0.02 [FR Doc. E8-11420 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R1-ES-2008-0051; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4] RIN 1018-AU37 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. 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 northern spotted owl ( *Strix occidentalis caurina* ) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis

(DEA)of the proposed revised critical habitat designation and an amended required determination section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed revised rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended required determinations section. If you submitted comments previously, then you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and we will fully consider them in preparation of our final rule. DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before June 20, 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: RIN 1018-AU37; 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: Matt Kales, Acting Project Leader, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE., 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone 503-231-6179. 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 proposed revised critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl published in the **Federal Register** on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450), the draft economic analysis of the proposed revised designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. 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 Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat is prudent.

(2)Specific information on: • The amount and distribution of northern spotted owl habitat, • 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)Information on the extent to which any State and local environmental protection measures we reference in the DEA may have been adopted largely as a result of the species' listing.

(5)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.

(6)Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and any regulatory changes likely if we designate revised critical habitat.

(7)Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could result from the revised designation.

(8)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.

(9)The extent to which the description in the draft economic analysis of economic impacts to public land management and other activities is complete and accurate.

(10)Information on areas that the revised critical habitat designation could potentially impact to a disproportionate degree.

(11)Economic data on the incremental costs of designating any particular area as revised critical habitat.

(12)Information on any quantifiable economic or other potential benefits of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat. Factors which may be considered under the potential benefits of critical habitat designation may include, but are not limited to, aesthetic considerations, recreational use, biodiversity, aquatic resources, intrinsic values, and benefits to local communities.

(13)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts. Other impacts in addition to economic effects that may be considered in the designation of critical habitat may include, but are not limited to, social factors, ecological factors, impacts on forest management, impacts on fire management, and impacts on local communities. The proposed revised designation specifically requested public comment on whether “any areas should or should not be excluded from the revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and why” (72 FR 32450).

(14)The potential impact, if any, of the proposed revised designation on the receipt of Federal timber-based revenues by counties, including, but not limited to, counties receiving timber-based revenues under the O&C Lands Act of 1937. Such impacts may include, but are not limited to, effects to the stability of county programs due to fluctuating or uncertain timber revenues.

(15)Any foreseeable economic or other potential benefits resulting from the proposed revised designation. Factors which may be considered under the potential benefits of critical habitat designation may include, but are not limited to, aesthetic considerations, recreational use, biodiversity, aquatic resources, intrinsic values, and benefits to local communities.

(16)After considering the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed revised critical habitat designation, whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

(17)Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments. In addition, the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl is now available. The public is invited to use this reopened comment period to provide comments on the revised critical habitat designation in light of the Recovery Plan or any other relevant information that has become available since the last comment period, such as the Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan prepared by Sustainable Ecosystems Institute for the Service. You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed revised rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations 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, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). You may obtain copies of the proposed revised rule and DEA by mail from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or on our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/.* You may obtain copies of the Final Recovery Plan and Sustainable Ecosystems Institute report on the Internet at *http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm.* Background It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the revised designation of critical habitat in this notice. For more information on the taxonomy and biology of the northern spotted owl, refer to the final listing rule published in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114), and the proposed revised critical habitat rule published on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450). We published the final rule to list the northern spotted owl as threatened in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26114), and designated critical habitat for the species on January 15, 1992 (57 FR 1796). On April 21, 2003, we published a notice of review initiating a 5-year review of the northern spotted owl (68 FR 19569), and on July 25, 2003, we published a second information request for the 5-year review (68 FR 44093). The 5-year review was completed on November 15, 2004, and concluded that the northern spotted owl should remain listed as a threatened species. On April 26, 2007, we published the notice of availability for the draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (72 FR 20865). On January 13, 2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with the American Forest Resource Council, Western Council of Industrial Workers, Swanson Group Inc., and Rough & Ready Lumber Company to conduct a rulemaking to consider potential revisions to critical habitat for the northern spotted owl that includes a revised consideration of economic impacts and any other relevant aspects of designation. The dates for completion of this review were extended and called for the Service to submit a proposed revised critical habitat designation to the **Federal Register** by June 1, 2007, and to submit a final revised critical habitat designation to the **Federal Register** by June 1, 2008. We published the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl on June 12, 2007 (72 FR 32450), and reopened an additional comment period on the proposal on September 5, 2007 (72 FR 50929). 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 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, pursuant to 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 based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. 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, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation based on our June 12, 2007, proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl. The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the northern spotted owl; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed revised critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species; for example, under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations. The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur after the proposed revised critical habitat is finalized. The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl over the next 20 years. The current draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed revised critical habitat designation. The economic analysis identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed revised critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs coextensive with listing. The analysis quantifies economic impacts of northern spotted owl conservation efforts associated primarily with the following activities:

(1)Timber management,

(2)section 7 consultation,

(3)survey and monitoring efforts, and

(4)barred owl management. The annualized pre-designation (1990 to 2007) impacts associated with species conservation activities for the northern spotted owl in area proposed for revised designation are $563 million applying a 3 percent discount rate and $600 million applying a 7 percent discount rate. These impacts are related to timber management, survey and monitoring efforts, barred owl management, and section 7 consultations. The post-designation impacts associated with species conservation were estimated over the period 2008 to 2027 for the same four categories of activities. The quantified post-designation baseline impacts (those estimated to occur in the absence of the critical habitat designation) are $601.80 to $602.21 million annualized applying a 7 percent discount rate, or $601.77 to $602.15 million annualized applying a 3 percent discount rate, over the 20-year period of analysis. Because these costs are projected to occur whether critical habitat is designated or not, they are not considered in our determination of whether the benefits of including an area as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of excluding the area. Of the activities considered in the analysis, only administrative costs of actions taken under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act associated with the geographic area proposed as revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl were determined to be incremental costs associated with the critical habitat designation, and therefore appropriate to consider in that designation. The DEA forecasts these incremental impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking to be $132,000 to $202,000 annualized over the next 20 years using a 7 percent discount rate, and $122,000 to $195,000 annualized using a 3 percent discount rate. The U.S. Forest Service

(USFS)is expected to bear approximately 60 percent of the total anticipated upper-bound incremental impacts, while the Service is forecast to bear more than 30 percent of these impacts. The remaining incremental impacts (about 10 percent) are anticipated to be borne by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Only the incremental costs of designating critical habitat, over and above the costs associated with species protection under the Act more generally, may be considered in designating critical habitat, therefore the methodology for distinguishing these two categories of costs is important. This is particularly true in the current case, where 99.97% of the total costs of species conservation over the next 20 years are projected to be baseline costs, and 0.03% are projected to be incremental costs associated with the critical habitat designation. In the absence of critical habitat, Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species—costs associated with such actions are considered baseline costs. Once an area is designated as critical habitat, proposed actions that have a Federal nexus in this area will also require consultation and potential revision to ensure that the action does not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat—costs associated with these actions are considered incremental costs. The DEA explains that incremental consultation which takes place as a result of critical habitat designation may fall into one of three categories:

(1)Additional effort to address adverse modification in a new consultation;

(2)re-initiation of consultation to address effects to critical habitat; and

(3)incremental consultation resulting entirely from critical habitat designation (i.e., where a proposed action may affect unoccupied critical habitat). Based on historical data, the DEA estimates that there will be 28 incremental consultations annually in the first category, plus one additional re-initiation of consultation (category 2) for each affected National Forest or BLM district regarding its land or resource management plan. Because no unoccupied habitat is being proposed for designation, no consultations in category 3 are projected. The DEA further projects that there will be no changes in management of any habitat resources that entail quantifiable costs resulting from these additional consultations over the 20-year period. This is because we believe that all costs of habitat management to protect northern spotted owls are already envisioned in the Northwest Forest Plan

(NFWP)and the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). As the DEA explains, “Both the NWFP and WOPR apply to lands within the current critical habitat designations, as well as in the proposed designation; however, neither plan was developed nor designed specifically in response to critical habitat” (DEA, p. 39). Thus, the roughly $21 billion in historical and projected costs for protecting species in critical habitat areas are attributable solely to the plans (which were in turn developed partially in response to the listing of the northen spotted owl) and not to either the current or proposed critical habitat designations. The Service notes that the majority of both current and proposed critical habitat areas are designated as Late Successional Reserves under the NFWP (which correspond roughly to Late Successional Management Areas under the WOPR), on which large scale harvesting of trees is generally not permitted, in order to protect late-successional and old-growth forests that are important to NSO preservation. However, we believe that the past and future management of these areas to protect northern spotted owls is a function solely of the plans, which did not result from, and will not be influenced in their future application by, the presence of critical habitat. Thus we project no incremental timber management costs as a result of the critical habitat designation. Ideally, we would have distinguished in the DEA between management of land previously designated as critical habitat within each NWFP land use allocation

(LUA)category and management of land not designated as critical habitat within the same category. If such an analysis found that there was no statistically discernable difference between timber harvest probabilities on critical habitat and non-critical habitat land within an LUA category, this would further support our conclusion that designation as critical habitat did not affect past management of habitat and therefore will be unlikely to have substantive costs in the future. Conversely, if such an analysis found that within a given LUA category, there was a lower probability of harvest on critical habitat land than on non-critical habitat land, this might have caused us to reassess that conclusion. However, we have been unable to find, and the Federal land managers that we have consulted have been unable to provide, timber harvest data that distinguishes between critical habitat and non-critical habitat land. As a result we have been able to quantitatively assess only baseline impacts, by looking at harvest probabilities by LUA category (but not by critical habitat) before the NWFP was implemented and after implementation of the NWFP (see Table 3-4 in the DEA). Lacking the relevant data for a statistical analysis of potential incremental impacts, we have instead relied on discussions with Service biologists and USFS and BLM land managers to assess incremental impacts. These discussions have confirmed that the anticipated impacts of the proposed designation on timber management range from minimal to none (see Section ES-1 of the DEA). We request comment on the accuracy of our methodology for distinguishing baseline and incremental costs, and the assumptions underlying it. We also request comment on alternative methodologies. Finally, we request comment on whether there is data available that could be used to distinguish harvest outcomes on critical habitat versus non-critical habitat land within each NWFP LUA category. The DEA considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the northern spotted owl, 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 northern spotted owl 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 revised designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, the DEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date we listed the northern spotted owl as threatened (June 26, 1990; 55 FR 26114), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the revised designation of critical habitat. Because the DEA considers the potential economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the northern spotted owl, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act and those attributable to the revised designation of critical habitat, the DEA overestimates the potential economic impacts of the revised critical habitat designation. As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on this DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or its supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during this comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from revised critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as revised critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. Required Determinations—Amended In our June 12, 2007, proposed revised rule (72 FR 32450), 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, E.O. 12988, 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

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), 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 (i.e., 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 DEA of the proposed revised designation, we provide our analysis for determining 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 and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; 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 are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this revised 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 designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities. 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; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement. The designation of critical habitat will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we finalize this proposed revised critical habitat designation, 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. Appendix B of the DEA evaluates the potential economic effects of the proposed revised designation on small entities, based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking. The screening analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in chapters 3 through 7 and Appendix A of the DEA. The analysis evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to several categories, including:

(1)Timber management,

(2)barred owl management and control,

(3)northern spotted owl surveys and monitoring,

(4)fire management,

(5)linear projects (i.e., transportation, pipelines, and powerlines),

(6)restoration,

(7)recreation, and

(8)administrative costs associated with Section 7 consultation. Of these activities, incremental impacts associated with the proposed revised critical habitat designation are anticipated only for the additive administrative costs of section 7 consultations and technical assistance requests (Appendix A of the DEA). The DEA concludes that as these incremental economic impacts will be borne entirely by Federal government agencies (USFS, BLM and the Service); the proposed rulemaking is not expected to affect any small entities. In summary, we have considered whether the proposed revised designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on currently available information and as explained above, all incremental economic impacts of the proposed revised designation are expected to be borne entirely by Federal agencies and no impacts on any small entities are anticipated. We therefore certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revised designation 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, and Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued 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 DEA finds none of these criteria relevant to this analysis (Appendix B of the DEA). Thus, based on information in the DEA, we do not expect northern spotted owl conservation activities within 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)The 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.” The designation of critical habitat 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. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. 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)We do not believe that the proposed designation will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The proposed revised designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments. The SBA does not consider the Federal Government to be a small governmental jurisdiction or entity. Consequently, we do not believe that the revised critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Executive Order 12630—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 northern spotted owl in a takings implications assessment. This proposed revised critical habitat designation would only affect Federal lands and would not affect private property interests. Therefore, our takings implications assessment concludes that the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl does not pose significant takings implications. Authors The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Division of Endangered Species, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 15, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-11321 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 99 Wednesday, May 21, 2008 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA). *Date:* Wednesday, June 4, 2008 (9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., times may be adjusted). *Location:* The Lane Room, 16th Floor, The Commerce Club, 34 Broad Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Please note that this is the anticipated agenda and is subject to change. *Keynote:* A senior USAID official has been invited to speak on the important role of partnerships as part of USAID's work in international development and humanitarian assistance. *Atlanta's Cross-Cutting Partnerships:* An examination of successful partnerships will take place with representatives from private voluntary organizations, universities, for-profit firms and the U.S. Government. Particular attention will be paid to those programs that have been or could be successfully replicated in other countries. Invited panelists include Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Helene Gayle, President and CEO of CARE (ACVFA Member), Ron Jarvis, Senior Vice President for Pro, Tool Rental and Environment for Home Depot, Michael Nyenhuis, President and CEO of MAP International (ACVFA Member) and a senior representative from an Atlanta area academic institution. *American Awareness of U.S. Foreign Assistance:* ACVFA members and Atlanta community leaders will moderate small group discussions with participants on ways to raise awareness of U.S. foreign assistance, including the important collaborative role of partner organizations. The meeting is free and open to the public. Persons wishing to attend the meeting can register online at *http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/acvfa* or with Jocelyn Rowe at *jrowe@usaid.gov* or 202-712-4002. Dated: May 12, 2008. Jocelyn M. Rowe, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA), U.S. Agency for International Development. [FR Doc. E8-11337 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 16, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Airplane Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record, Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record, Airplane Data Record, and Helicopter Data Record. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0015. *Summary of Collection:* The Forest Service

(FS)is the largest owner and operator of aircraft in the federal government outside of the Department of Defense. In conducting the Forest Service Land management mission they use 44 owned aircraft with 315 aircraft on loan to 18 States for fire suppression activities. The majority of FS flying is in support of wildland fire suppression. In addition to the agency owned aircraft, the FS contracts with approximately 400 vendors for aviation services used in resource protection and administrative projects. Contractor aircraft and pilots are used to place water and chemical retardants on fires, provide aerial delivery of firefighters to fires, perform reconnaissance, resource surveys, search for lost personnel, and fire detection. Contracts for such services established rigorous qualification requirements for pilots and specific condition/equipment/performance requirements for aircraft. The authority is granted under the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations in Title 14 (Aeronautics and Space) of the Code of Federal Regulations. *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect information using FS forms to document the basis for approval of contract pilot and aircraft for use in specific FS aviation missions. The information collected from contract pilots in face to face meetings (such as name, age, pilots license number, number of hours flown in type of aircraft, etc.) is based on the length and type of contract but is usually done on a reoccurring annual basis. Without the information supplied on these forms, FS contracting officers and pilot/aircraft inspectors cannot determine if pilots and aircraft meet the detailed qualification, equipment, and condition requirements essential to safe, efficient accomplishment of FS specified flying missions and which are included in contract specifications. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 2,700. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,226. Forest Service *Title:* 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A—Locatable Minerals. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0022. *Summary of Collection:* The United States Mining Law of 1982, as amended, governs the prospecting for and appropriation of metallic and most nonmetallic minerals on 192 millions acres of National Forest set up by proclamation from the public domain. It gives individuals the right to search for and extract valuable mineral deposits of locatable minerals and secure title to the lands involved. Recording that claim in the local courthouse and with the appropriate BLM State Office affords protection to the mining claimant from subsequent locators. A mining claimant is entitled to reasonable access to claim for further prospecting, mining or necessary related activities, subject to the other laws and applicable regulations. The purpose of the regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, is to set some specific rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with mineral operations authorized by the United States mining laws shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources. The Forest Service

(FS)will collect information using form FS 2800-5, Plan of Operations for Mining Activities on National Forest System Lands. *Need and Use of the Information:* FS will collect information requirements for a Notice of Intent to include the name, address, and telephone number of the operator; the area involved; the nature of the proposed operations; the route of access to the area of operations and the method of transport. The information requirements for a Plan of Operations includes: The name and legal mailing address of the operators; a description of the type of operations proposed; a description of how it would be conducted; a description of the type and standard of existing/proposed roads/access route; a description of the means of transportation to be used; a description of the period during which the proposed activity will take place; and measures to meet the environmental protection requirements. The information requirements for a cessation of operation include: verification to maintain the structures, equipment and other facilities; expected reopening date; estimate of extended duration of operations; and maintenance of the site, structure, equipment and other facilities during nonoperating periods. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 737. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (approved for a given period). *Total Burden Hours:* 4,661. Forest Service *Title:* Social and Cultural Structure of Private Forestry. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* Non-industrial Private Forest

(NIPF)land represents about 95 percent of the private forest owners and 63 percent of the private forestland in the southern United States. NIPF lands provide many important public and private benefits including timber supply, forest health, watershed protection, biodiversity, aesthetics, wildlife, recreation, income, and investment. These benefits are enhanced when landowners receive professional forestry assistance, though very few landowners seek assistance or have written management plans for their forests. Forest Service along with a team of researchers from the Southern Research Station, and the College of Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Sciences, Tuskegee University will conduct a study of minority forest landowners at three sites in the South. *Need and Use of the Information:* This study will provide guidance for

(a)reaching underserved landowners,

(b)motivating a wider range of forest landowners to take action to meet their objectives, and

(c)developing new survey questions for use in NIPF studies nationwide. The information collected during face-to-face interviews with forest landowners includes responses to “twenty statements test” to measure identity, identification of social networks utilized to acquire forest management information, demographic data, life history regarding land ownership and forest management. Learning how diverse forest landowners operate within social and cultural contexts will produce practical and theoretical benefits. The information gathered will contribute to scientific presentations and publications and will assist in developing new approaches for delivery of assistance to forest landowners. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or Households. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 200. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11356 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 16, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Natural Resource Conservation Service *Title:* Emergency Watershed Protection Program Recovery. *OMB Control Number:* 0578-0030. *Summary of Collection:* The Emergency Watershed Protection

(EWP)Program regulations at 7 CFR 624 set forth the basic policies, program provisions, and eligibility requirements for sponsors to participate in the EWP program. The Natural Resource Conservation Service

(NRCS)is responsible for administration of EWP Program. EWP assistance is provided to sponsors to undertake emergency measures for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood, or any other natural disaster occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of that watershed. The sponsor's request is submitted formally as a letter (NRCS-PDM-20A) to the NRCS State Conservationist for consideration. Form NRCS-PDM-20, Damage Survey Report

(DSR)is the agency decision-making document that includes the economic, social, and environmental evaluation, as well as the engineer's cost estimate. *Need and Use of the Information:* The collected information allows the responsible federal official to make EWP eligibility determinations and provide federal cost-share payments to the sponsors. Without the information NRCS would not be able to implement the program. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 190. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (Disaster Occurrence). *Total Burden Hours:* 5,035. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11357 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest, ID; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Targhee Revised Forest Plan With Proposed Forest Plan Amendment AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Caribou-Targhee National Forest is proposing to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS)to the Targhee Revised Forest Plan

(FEIS)to disclose effects of a proposed amendment to the TRFP to address Plan direction for forested vegetation that presently does not reflect the ecological capability of forest ecosystems found on the Targhee National Forest and to also clarify TRFP direction on snags. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 45 days from the date of this publication. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement is expected July of 2008 and the final supplemental environmental impact statement is expected November 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Robbin Redman, Forest Planner, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Electronic comments can be sent to *comments-intermtn-caribou-targhee@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robbin Redman, Forest Planner, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401 or telephone

(208)557-5821. Purpose and Need for Action The Caribou-Targhee National Forest (C-T) has completed an assessment of forest vegetation for the Targhee portion of the C-T and in addition to this assessment the Forest has previously completed identification of the properly functioning condition

(PFC)for forested landscapes in the Madison-Pitchstone Plateau Subsection. Scientific research papers published after the TRFP and PFC were also completed that help the Forest to identify desired conditions that better match the ecological capabilities of forested vegetation including a range of amounts and distribution of old growth and late seral structural stages by forest type. The results of the information discussed above indicate a need to amend guidance in the TRFP for old growth and late seral structural stages to better describe desired conditions in the TRFP for old growth and late seral structural stages. Specifically, review of existing information and TRFP direction indicates the following: The TRFP established guidelines for old growth and late seral forest stages that suggest minimum percentages of forested acres of old growth and late seral forest be present in each principal watershed. Presence and persistence of late seral stages and old growth are highly dependent on natural disturbance cycles that vary with forest type. For example, several principal watersheds are dominated by the lodgepole pine forest type, which rarely develops old growth conditions on the Targhee National Forest. Natural disturbance cycles in lodgepole pine forest such as insects, disease, and fire recur frequently enough to preclude development of old-growth conditions in most of this type. Therefore, the old growth and late seral guidelines presently in the TRFP do not reflect the ecological capability of these forest ecosystems. Similarly, several principal watersheds have a large component of the aspen forest type. On the Targhee, aspen is primarily seral to conifer. Stable aspen is rare and limited to harsh sites generally along ecotones with poor growing conditions where conifer cannot establish. Absent disturbances in seral types, these aspen stands will eventually be replaced by conifer types and it is unlikely that late seral or old growth aspen stands will develop or persist. Even though the ecological capability of these forest types is different from others such as spruce/fir the Forest is still proposing to manage for old growth and replacement old growth in these forest types, this would be for vegetation diversity. Recent insect outbreaks have changed the number and distribution of snags over much of the Targhee NF. Currently TRFP snag direction requires several levels of analysis of snags: at the prescription area, at the watershed level and at a 100 acre level. This direction will be reviewed and adjusted to reflect current conditions and allow for wildlife habitat needs. Proposed Action The Caribou-Targhee National Forest is proposing to amend the TRFP with regard to Plan direction for old growth and late seral forested vegetation. The Proposed old growth direction will be to manage for ten percent of forested acres in a combination of old growth and replacement old growth in ecological subsections. The old growth would meet Region 4 Characteristics of Old Growth Forests definitions. The Forest is also proposing to clarify snag direction in the Plan to allow more ease in implementation while still providing for wildlife habitat needs. Possible Alternatives The Forest has developed the Proposed Action and the no-action alternative which is to continue with current TRFP direction. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Caribou-Targhee National Forest is the lead agency for this project. Responsible Official The responsible official is: Larry Timchak, Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401. Nature of Decision To Be Made Given the purpose and need, the deciding officer will decide whether or not to amend the Targhee Revised Forest Plan with regard to TRFP direction for old growth and late seral structural stages and to clarify TRFP snag direction. Scoping Process The C-T Forest is now seeking comments on this proposal and will seek comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement when it becomes available. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the supplemental environmental impact statement. The Forest is seeking comments that may be used to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action. We are seeking specific comments on snag requirements for cavity nesters for the TRFP, specifically management guidance for retention of snags and specific comments on a more appropriate percentage of old growth and at what level it is appropriate to be maintained for vegetation diversity. To be most helpful comments should include rationale for any recommendations. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft supplemental 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 supplemental 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 14, 2008. Lawrence Timchak, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-11248 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-122-840) Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala or David Neubacher, at

(202)482-1784 or

(202)482-5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 24, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the final results for the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , 71 FR 3822 (Jan. 24, 2006) ( *Final Results* ). Mittal Canada, Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) (“Mittal”) challenged several aspects of the *Final Results* before a NAFTA binational panel. On November 28, 2007, the panel issued a decision. *See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada* , Decision of the Panel, USA-CDA-2006-1904-04 (Nov. 28, 2007). On April 17, 2008, the United States Department of Commerce, Mittal, and Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Inc. and Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement covering this NAFTA proceeding (“Agreement”). Pursuant to this settlement of litigation, Mittal filed a consent motion to terminate the panel review and vacate the panel's decisions in the proceeding referenced above. On April 29, 2008, the NAFTA Secretariat of the U.S. Section published the notice of termination of the panel review. *See North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate Panel Review* , 73 FR 23183 (Apr. 29, 2008). The review period covered by these amended final results is from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004. Assessment of Duties Pursuant to the Agreement, the Department is amending the final results of the contested review and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate all entries of Canadian wire rod that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004, that were produced and exported by Mittal or Ispat Sidbec Inc., at the assessment rate of 3.86% *ad valorem* . Because parties waived any right to challenge these amended final results pursuant to the Agreement, the Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP following publication of this notice. Cash-Deposit Requirements As provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and as stipulated in the Agreement with regard to the settlement of the second administrative review, the cash-deposit rate for all shipments of Canadian wire rod produced and exported by Mittal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 21, 2008, 2008, shall be 3.86% *ad valorem* . The deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: May 15, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-11435 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket Number: 080513661-8662-01] The Draft Report of the NOAA Science Advisory Board Working Group To Examine Advisory Options for Improving Communications Among NOAA's Partners AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comment. SUMMARY: NOAA Research

(OAR)publishes this notice on behalf of the NOAA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)to announce the availability for public comment of the draft report of the SAB Working Group to Examine Advisory Options for Improving Communications among NOAA's Partners (here called the Partnerships Working Group). DATES: Comments on this preliminary report must be received by 5 p.m. EDT June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Draft Report of the Working Group will be available on the NOAA Science Advisory Board Web site at *http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/* . The public is encouraged to submit comments electronically to *noaa.sab.comments2@noaa.gov* . For individuals who do not have access to the Internet, comments may be submitted in writing to: NOAA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)c/o Dr. Cynthia Decker, 1315 East-West Highway-R/SAB, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway-R/SAB, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-734-1156, Fax: 301-734-1459, E-mail: *Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov* ) during normal business hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the NOAA SAB Web site at *http://www.sab.noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preliminary report of the Partnerships Working Group has been drafted pursuant to the request initiated by the NOAA Science Advisory Board and approved by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, to examine advisory options for improving communications among the various public, private, and academic entities engaged in environmental information matters. The Terms of Reference for the Working Group can be found on the SAB Web site at *http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Working_Groups/current/partnerships/PWG_terms.pdf* . This report was prepared in response to the charge to the working group to examine advisory options including: Expanded use of existing NOAA Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)committees and/or the National Research Council; changing the structure and/or re-chartering the existing NOAA FACA committees, including the SAB, into new FACA committees or some combinations of approaches. With input from the appropriate offices in NOAA and the Department of Commerce, the PWG members debated the various options available, ranging from ad hoc meetings at various venues on an irregular basis to establishment of a formal federal advisory committee to NOAA. The group considered the strengths and weaknesses of all these options but agreed that NOAA should create a formal and clear mechanism to ensure that a wide variety of external stakeholders can provide advice and receive feedback from the agency. The PWG recommended that NOAA use a combination of approaches, starting with establishment of a Working Group under the Science Advisory Board to immediately address concerns from the external weather community, assess the success of this approach after 1-2 years, and consider at that time whether to establish a separate federal advisory committee with a mandate for the broader environmental services enterprise. The terms of reference for the proposed standing Working Group are included in the appendix of the report. The Working Group will consider public comments on the draft report and incorporate them, as appropriate, in the final report to be delivered to the SAB. The SAB is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with the responsibility to advise the Under Secretary on long- and short-term strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. The SAB welcomes all comments on the content of the preliminary report. We also request comments on any inconsistencies perceived within the report, and possible omissions of important topics or issues. This draft report is being issued for comment only and is not intended for interim use. For any shortcoming noted within the preliminary report, please propose specific remedies. Suggested changes will be incorporated where appropriate, and a final report will be posted on the SAB Web site. Please follow these instructions for preparing and submitting comments. Using the format guidance described below will facilitate the processing of comments and assure that all comments are appropriately considered. Overview comments should be provided first and should be numbered. Comments that are specific to particular pages, paragraphs or lines of the section should follow any overview comments and should identify the page and line numbers to which they apply. Please number each page of your comments. Dated: May 14, 2008. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-11145 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH98 Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a 5-Year Review of the Endangered U.S. Distinct Population Segment

(DPS)of Smalltooth Sawfish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of initiation of a 5-year review; request for information. SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a 5-year review of the U.S. DPS of Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). A 5-year review is a periodic process conducted to ensure that the listing classification of a species is accurate. A 5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information on the smalltooth sawfish that has become available since its original listing as an endangered species on April 1, 2003. Based on the results of this 5-year review, we will make the requisite findings under the ESA. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than July 21, 2008. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time. ADDRESSES: Please submit information to Shelley Norton, National Marine Fisheries Service, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Information received in response to this notice and review will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above address. Information may also be submitted by e-mail to: *shelley.norton@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following identifier: Smalltooth sawfish information for 5-year review. Information may also be submitted via facsimile

(fax)to 727-824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Norton at the above address, or at 727-824-5312. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the ESA, a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species must be maintained. The list is published at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:

(1)the species is considered extinct;

(2)the species is considered to be recovered; and/or

(3)the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the smalltooth sawfish, currently listed as endangered. Public Solicitation of New Information To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data available, we are soliciting new information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the smalltooth sawfish. The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data available and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include:

(A)species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

(B)habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;

(C)conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

(D)status and trends of threats; and

(E)other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods. If you wish to provide information for this 5-year review, you may submit your information and materials to Shelley Norton (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to make submissions of information, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a respondent's identity as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your submission. We will not, however, consider anonymous submissions. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Information and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours (see ADDRESSES section). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Dated: May 16, 2008. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11422 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XH96 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper and Grouper Off the Southern Atlantic States AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit

(EFP)from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc.. If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicants, with certain conditions, to collect limited numbers of undersized and out-of-season snapper and grouper in South Atlantic Federal waters. This study is intended to characterize catch and discard mortality within the South Atlantic commercial hook and line snapper-grouper fishery. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the application by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “FND_EFP”. • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. • Fax: 727-824-5308. The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, 727-824-5305; fax: 727-824-5308; e-mail: *Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing. The described research is part of a Cooperative Research Program Grant. The Cooperative Research Program is a means of involving commercial and recreational fishermen in the collection of fundamental fisheries information. Resource collection efforts support the development and evaluation of fisheries management and regulatory options. The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. The applicants require authorization to possess undersized and out-of-season snapper and grouper for scientific research activities during the period July 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. Specimens would be collected from Federal waters off the east coast of Florida and Federal waters off the coasts of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Sampling would occur during normal fishing operations of the commercial snapper-grouper vertical hook-and-line fishery. Sampling would occur year-round, collecting up to 500 fish during the course of the sampling. Data collections for this study would support improved information about the catch, bycatch, discards, and discard mortality for species in the snapper-grouper complex. These data would provide insight on a stock's resilience to fishing, and would help refine estimates of long-term biological productivity of the stocks. Currently, these data are unavailable, and it is anticipated project results would yield valuable data within this fishery. NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Based on a preliminary review, NMFS intends to issue an EFP. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS may prohibit the possession of Nassau or goliath grouper, and require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 15, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11421 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)[Docket Number: 080513656-8657-01] Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; NOAA Science Advisory Board's Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of solicitation for members of the NOAA Science Advisory Board's Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group. SUMMARY: The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere requested the NOAA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)to establish a standing working group to provide scientific advice and broad direction on NOAA's ecosystem related programs in the context of both national and international activities. The Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group (ESMWG) will focus on research, monitoring, and management components of NOAA's ecosystem portfolio, as well as the underlying observations and data management issues. The ESMWG will assist in establishing plans, assessing progress, and reviewing priorities on a continuing basis. The ESMWG will be composed of 10-12 scientists and leaders in the following disciplines as related to ecosystem sciences and management: social science, oceanography, living marine resources, sampling and remote sensing, and modeling. The SAB is requesting nominations for membership in the ESMWG. DATES: Nominations must be received July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be submitted electronically to *noaa.sab.ecosystem@noaa.gov* , or mailed to: NOAA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)c/o Dr. Cynthia Decker, 1315 East-West Highway-R/SAB, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Cynthia Decker, 301-734-1156. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The complete Terms of Reference of this working group can be found on the NOAA Science Advisory Board Web site: *http://www.sab.noaa.gov/working_groups/standing/docs/2008/ESMWG_TOR_FINAL.pdf* . At this time, the SAB is soliciting for up to twelve members in the following disciplines related to ecosystem sciences and management: social science, oceanography, living marine resources, sampling and remote sensing, and modeling. Members should have a credible science background, and an operational knowledge of federal agencies and interactions with state and local partners. Members will be appointed for three-year terms on a rolling and randomized basis with the opportunity for one additional term. The Working Group will convene 2-3 times per year. The intent is to select the membership of the group from the suggested candidates; however, the SAB retains the prerogative to name members to the working group who were not nominated if it deems this necessary to achieve the desired balance. Once selected, the SAB will post the review panel members' names at *http://www.sab.noaa.gov.* *Nominations:* Anyone is eligible to nominate members of the working group. Self-nominations will be accepted. Nominations should provide:

(1)The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information;

(2)the nominee's area(s) of expertise; and

(3)a concise Curriculum Vitae

(CV)or resume that covers education, experience, relevant publications and summarizes how this expertise addresses the ESMWG terms of reference. Dated: May 16, 2008. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-11415 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI04 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Operation of an LNG Facility in Massachusetts Bay AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to operation of an offshore liquefied natural gas

(LNG)facility in the Massachusetts Bay, has been issued to Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge TM L.L.C. (Northeast Gateway) for a period of 1 year. DATES: This authorization is effective from May 15, 2008, until May 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, and a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. A copy of the application may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and is also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* . The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG)Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on the Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge LNG Deepwater Port license application is available for viewing at *http://dms.dot.gov* under the docket number 22219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289, ext 137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as follows: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which

(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. Description of the Activity The Port consists of two subsea Submerged Turret Loading (STL ) buoys, each with a flexible riser assembly and a manifold connecting the riser assembly, via a steel flowline, to the subsea Pipeline Lateral. Northeast Gateway utilizes vessels from its current fleet of specially designed Energy-Bridge TM Regasification Vessels (EBRVs), each capable of transporting approximately 2.9 billion ft 3 (Bcf; 82 million m 3 ) of natural gas condensed to 4.9 million ft 3 (138,000 m 3 ) of LNG. Northeast Gateway will also add vessels to its fleet that will have a cargo capacity of approximately 151,000 m 3 . The mooring system installed at the Port is designed to handle both the existing vessels and any of the larger capacity vessels that may come into service in the future. The EBRVs dock to the STLTM TM buoys which serve as both the single-point mooring system for the vessels and the delivery conduit for natural gas. Each of the STLTM buoys is secured to the seafloor using a series of suction anchors and a combination of chain/cable anchor lines. During the Port operations, EBRVs servicing the Port would utilize the newly configured and International Maritime Organization-approved Boston Traffic Separation Scheme

(TSS)on their approach to and departure from the NEG Port at the earliest practicable point of transit. EBRVs would maintain speeds of 12 knots or less while in the TSS except when transiting the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area between March 1 and April 30, the Great South Channel Seasonal Management Area between April 1 and July 31, or when there have been active right whale sightings, active acoustic detections, or both, in the vicinity of the transiting EBRV in the TSS or at the Port, in which case the vessels would slow their speeds to 10 knots or less. See the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measurements section. As an EBRV makes its final approach to the Port, vessel speed will gradually be reduced to 3 knots at 1.86 mi (1.16 km) out to less than 1 knot at a distance of 1,640 ft (500 m) from the Port. When an EBRV arrives at the Port, it will retrieve one of the two permanently anchored submerged STLTM TM buoys. It will make final connection to the buoy through a series of engine and bow thruster actions. The EBRV will require the use of thrusters for dynamic positioning during docking procedure. Typically, the docking procedure is completed over a 10- to 30-minute period, with the thrusters activated as necessary for short periods of time in second bursts, not a continuous sound source. Once connected to the buoy, the EBRV will begin vaporizing the liquified natural gas

(LNG)into its natural gas state using the onboard regasification system. As the LNG is regasified, natural gas will be transferred at pipeline pressures off the EBRV through the STLTM TM buoy and flexible riser via a steel flowline leading to the connecting Pipeline Lateral. When the LNG vessel is on the buoy, wind and current effects on the vessel will be allowed to “weathervane” on the single-point mooring system; therefore, thrusters will not be used to maintain a stationary position. It would take approximately 8 days for each EBRV to moor to the STLTM TM Buoy, regasify its cargo of LNG and send it to the Northeast Gateway Pipeline Lateral, and disengage from the buoy. It is estimated that the Port could receive approximately 65 cargo deliveries a year. During this time period thrusters will be engaged in use for docking at the Port approximately 10 to 30 minutes for each vessel arrival and departure. The specified design life of the NEG Port is about 40 years, with the exception of the anchors, mooring chain/rope, and riser/umbilical assemblies, which are based on a maintenance-free design life of 20 years. The buoy pick-up system components are considered consumable and will be inspected following each buoy connection, and replaced (from inside the STLTM compartment during the normal cargo discharge period) as deemed necessary. The underwater components of the Port will be inspected once yearly using either divers or remotely operated vehicles to check and record the condition of the various STLTM system components. These activities will be conducted using the Port′s normal support vessel, and to the extent possible will coincide with planned weekly visits to the Port. Detailed information on these activities can be found in the MARAD/USCG Final EIS on the Northeast Gateway Project (see ADDRESSES for availability) and in the IHA application. Detailed information on the LNG facility′s operation and maintenance activities, and noise generated from operations was also published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11328). No changes have been made to these proposed activities. Comments and Responses A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16266). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and two private citizens. *Comment 1:* The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA provided that

(a)all marine mammal mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures identified in the **Federal Register** notice are included in the authorization and retained in any proposed regulations issued by NMFS to govern the activities over a five-year period; and

(b)operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured right whale or other marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the applicant's activities. Any suspension should remain in place until NMFS

(1)has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely or

(2)has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the Commission′s recommendation raised in the above comment, and extends the requirement to any type of injury, not just serious injury, if it could be attributable to LNG activities. *Comment 2:* One private citizen states that more due diligence on the front end is needed before NMFS issues the IHA. *Response:* NMFS has conducted extensive review of the best science available regarding the biology of the marine mammals affected and the propagation of sounds from operations of the offshore LNG port. This information is supported by Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements issued by MARAD and USCG under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and a biological opinion pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). *Comment 3:* One private citizen questions why NMFS grants the permit if there is harassment to marine mammals. *Response:* As stated in the beginning of this document, the MMPA directs the Secretary to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made. NMFS has made these findings and followed the appropriate process set forth in MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D). Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity Marine mammal species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the Northeast Gateway facility include several species of cetaceans and pinnipeds: North Atlantic right whale ( *Eubalaena glacialis* ), humpback whale ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), fin whale ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ), minke whale ( *B. acutorostrata* ), pilot whale ( *Globicephala* spp.), Atlantic white-sided dolphin ( *Lagenorhynchus acutus* ), bottlenose dolphin ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), common dolphin ( *Delphinus delphis* ), killer whale ( *Orcinus orca* ), harbor porpoise ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), harbor seal ( *Phoca vitulina* ), and gray seal ( *Halichoerus grypus* ). Information on those species that may be impacted by this activity are discussed in detail in the MARAD and USCG Final EIS on the Northeast Gateway LNG proposal. Please refer to that document for more information on these species and potential impacts from construction and operation of this LNG facility. In addition, general information on these marine mammal species can also be found in Wursig *et al.*

(2000)and in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (Waring *et al.* , 2007). This latter document is available at: *http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm201/* . An updated summary on several commonly sighted marine mammal species distribution and abundance in the vicinity of the proposed action area is provided below. Humpback Whale The highest abundance for humpback whales was distributed primarily along a relatively narrow corridor following the 100-m (328 ft) isobath across the southern Gulf of Maine from the northwestern slope of Georges Bank, south to the Great South Channel, and northward alongside Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. The relative abundance of whales increased in the spring with the highest occurrence along the slope waters (between the 40- and 140-m, or 131- and 459-ft, isobaths) off Cape Cod and Davis Bank, Stellwagen Basin and Tillies Basin and between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths along the inner slope of Georges Bank. High abundance was also estimated for the waters around Platts Bank. In the summer months, abundance increased markedly over the shallow waters (<50 m, or <164 ft) of Stellwagen Bank, the waters (100 - 200 m, or 328 - 656 ft) between Platts Bank and Jeffreys Ledge, the steep slopes (between the 30- and 160-m isobaths) of Phelps and Davis Bank north of the Great South Channel towards Cape Cod, and between the 50- and 100-m (164- and 328-ft) isobath for almost the entire length of the steeply sloping northern edge of Georges Bank. This general distribution pattern persisted in all seasons except winter, when humpbacks remained at high abundance in only a few locations including Porpoise and Neddick Basins adjacent to Jeffreys Ledge, northern Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin, and the Great South Channel. Fin Whale Spatial patterns of habitat utilization by fin whales were very similar to those of humpback whales. Spring and summer high-use areas followed the 100-m (328 ft) isobath along the northern edge of Georges Bank (between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths), and northward from the Great South Channel (between the 50- and 160-m, or 164- and 525-ft, isobaths). Waters around Cashes Ledge, Platts Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge are all high-use areas in the summer months. Stellwagen Bank was a high-use area for fin whales in all seasons, with highest abundance occurring over the southern Stellwagen Bank in the summer months. In fact, the southern portion of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) was used more frequently than the northern portion in all months except winter, when high abundance was recorded over the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank. In addition to Stellwagen Bank, high abundance in winter was estimated for Jeffreys Ledge and the adjacent Porpoise Basin (100- to 160-m, 328- to 656-ft, isobaths), as well as Georges Basin and northern Georges Bank. Minke Whale Like other piscivorous baleen whales, highest abundance for minke whale was strongly associated with regions between the 50- and 100-m (164- and 328-ft) isobaths, but with a slightly stronger preference for the shallower waters along the slopes of Davis Bank, Phelps Bank, Great South Channel and Georges Shoals on Georges Bank. Minke whales were sighted in the SBNMS in all seasons, with highest abundance estimated for the shallow waters (approximately 40 m, or 131 ft) over southern Stellwagen Bank in the summer and fall months. Platts Bank, Cashes Ledge, Jeffreys Ledge, and the adjacent basins (Neddick, Porpoise and Scantium) also supported high relative abundance. Very low densities of minke whales remained throughout most of the southern Gulf of Maine in winter. North Atlantic Right Whale North Atlantic right whales were generally distributed widely across the southern Gulf of Maine in spring with highest abundance located over the deeper waters (100- to 160-m, or 328- to 525-ft, isobaths) on the northern edge of the Great South Channel and deep waters (100 300 m, 328 - 984 ft) parallel to the 100-m (328-ft) isobath of northern Georges Bank and Georges Basin. High abundance was also found in the shallowest waters (< 30 m, or <98 ft) of Cape Cod Bay, over Platts Bank and around Cashes Ledge. Lower relative abundance was estimated over deep-water basins including Wilkinson Basin, Rodgers Basin and Franklin Basin. In the summer months, right whales moved almost entirely away from the coast to deep waters over basins in the central Gulf of Maine (Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Basin between the 160- and 200-m, or 525- and 656-ft, isobaths) and north of Georges Bank (Rogers, Crowell and Georges Basins). Highest abundance was found north of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath at the Great South Channel and over the deep slope waters and basins along the northern edge of Georges Bank. The waters between Fippennies Ledge and Cashes Ledge were also estimated as high-use areas. In the fall months, right whales were sighted infrequently in the Gulf of Maine, with highest densities over Jeffreys Ledge and over deeper waters near Cashes Ledge and Wilkinson Basin. In winter, Cape Cod Bay, Scantum Basin, Jeffreys Ledge, and Cashes Ledge were the main high-use areas. Although SBNMS does not appear to support the highest abundance of right whales, sightings within SBNMS are reported for all four seasons, albeit at low relative abundance. Highest sighting within SBNMS occured along the southern edge of the Bank. Pilot whale Pilot whales arrived in the southern Gulf of Maine in spring, with highest abundance in the region occurring in summer and fall. Summer high-use areas included the slopes of northern Georges Bank along the 100-m (328-ft) isobath and pilot whales made extensive use of the shoals of Georges Bank (<60 m, or <197 ft, depth). Similarly, fall distributions were also primarily along the slopes of northern Georges Bank, but with high-use areas also occurring amongst the deep-water basins and ledges of the south-central Gulf of Maine. Within SBNMS, pilot whales were sighted infrequently and were most often estimated at low density. Cape Cod Bay and southern SBNMS were the only locations with pilot whale sightings for winter. Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin In spring, summer and fall, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were widespread throughout the southern Gulf of Maine, with the high-use areas widely located either side of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath along the northern edge of Georges Bank, and north from the Great South Channel to Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Platts Bank and Cashes Ledge. In spring, high-use areas existed in the Great South Channel, northern Georges Bank, the steeply sloping edge of Davis Bank and Cape Cod, southern Stellwagen Bank and the waters between Jeffreys Ledge and Platts Bank. In summer, there was a shift and expansion of habitat toward the east and northeast. High-use areas were identified along most of the northern edge of Georges Bank between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths and northward from the Great South Channel along the slopes of Davis Bank and Cape Cod. High sightings were also recorded over Truxton Swell, Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Ledge and the bathymetrically complex area northeast of Platts Bank. High sightings of white-sided dolphin were recorded within SBNMS in all seasons, with highest density in summer and most widespread distributions in spring located mainly over the southern end of Stellwagen Bank. In winter, high sightings were recorded at the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin. A comparison of spatial distribution patterns for all baleen whales (Mysticeti) and all porpoises and dolphins combined showed that both groups have very similar spatial patterns of high- and low-use areas. The baleen whales, whether piscivorous or planktivorous, were more concentrated than the dolphins and porpoises. They utilized a corridor that extended broadly along the most linear and steeply sloping edges in the southern Gulf of Maine indicated broadly by the 100 m (328 ft) isobath. Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge supported a high abundance of baleen whales throughout the year. Species richness maps indicated that high-use areas for individual whales and dolphin species co-occurred, resulting in similar patterns of species richness primarily along the southern portion of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath extending northeast and northwest from the Great South Channel. The southern edge of Stellwagen Bank and the waters around the northern tip of Cape Cod were also highlighted as supporting high cetacean species richness. Intermediate to high numbers of species are also calculated for the waters surrounding Jeffreys Ledge, the entire Stellwagen Bank, Platts Bank, Fippennies Ledge and Cashes Ledge. Killer Whale, Common Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, and Harbor Porpoise Although these four species are some of the most widely distributed small cetacean species in the world (Jefferson *et al.* , 1993), they were not commonly seen in the vicinity of the project area in Massachusetts Bay (Wiley *et al.* , 1994; NCCOS, 2006; Northeast Gateway Marine Mammal Monitoring Weekly Reports, 2007). Harbor Seal and Gray Seal In the U.S. waters of the western North Atlantic, both harbor and gray seals were usually found from the coast of Maine south to southern New England and New York (Warrings *et al.* , 2007). Along the southern New England and New York coasts, harbor seals occur seasonally from September through late May (Schneider and Payne, 1983). In recent years, their seasonal interval along the southern New England to New Jersey coasts had increased (deHart, 2002). In U.S. waters, harbor seal breeding and pupping normally occur in waters north of the New Hampshire/Maine border, although breeding has occurred as far south as Cape Cod in the early part of the 20 th century (Temte *et al.* , 1991; Katona *et al.* , 1993). Although gray seals were often seen off the coast from New England to Labrador, within the U.S. waters, only small numbers of gray seals have been observed pupping on several isolated islands along the Maine coast and in Nantucket-Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts (Katona *et al.* , 1993; Rough, 1995). In the late 1990s, a year-round breeding population of approximately over 400 gray seals was documented on outer Cape Cod and Muskeget Island (Warring *et al.* , 2007). Potential Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson *et al.* , 1995):

(1)The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);

(2)The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;

(3)The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;

(4)Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;

(5)Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce

(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;

(6)If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and

(7)Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal′s hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold shift

(TTS)in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic (or explosive events) may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. There are three general kinds of sounds recognized by NMFS: continuous (such as shipping sounds), intermittent (such as vibratory pile driving sounds), and impulse. No impulse noise activities, such as blasting or standard pile driving, are associated with this project. The noise sources of potential concern are regasification/offloading (which is a continuous sound) and dynamic positioning of vessels using thrusters (an intermittent sound). Based on research by Malme *et al.* (1983; 1984), for both continuous and intermittent sound sources, Level B harassment is presumed to begin at received levels of 120-dB. None of the continuous sound sources associated with operation of the Northeast Gateway Project is expected to exceed the 120-dB threshold for Level B harassment. However, the intermittent noises from thruster use associated with dynamic positioning of vessels during operation (docking) may occasionally exceed this 120-dB threshold. Consequently, thruster use has the potential for a “take” by Level B harassment of any marine mammal occurring within a zone of ensonification (greater than 120 dB) emanating from the sound source. The potential impacts to marine mammals associated with sound propagation from vessel movements, anchors, chains and LNG regasification/offloading could be the temporary and short-term displacement of seals and whales from within the 120-dB zones ensonified by these noise sources. Animals would be expexted to re-occupy the area once the noise ceases. In the vicinity of the LNG Port, where the water depth is about 80 m (262 ft), the 120-dB radius is estimated to be approximately 2.56 km (1.6 mi) from the second source during dynamic positioning for the container ship, making a zone of influence

(ZOI)of 21 km 2 (8.1 mi 2 ). Estimates of Take by Harassment The basis for Northeast Gateway′s “take” estimate is the number of marine mammals that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of 120 dB. This is determined by multiplying the ZOI by local marine mammal density estimates, corrected to take account for 50 percent marine mammals that may be underwater, and then by estimated LNG container ship visits per year. In the case of data gaps, a conservative approach was used to ensure the potential number of takes is not underestimated, as described next. NMFS recognizes that baleen whale species other than North Atlantic right whales have been sighted in the project area from May to November. However, the occurrence and abundance of fin, humpback, and minke is not well documented within the project area. Nonetheless, NMFS uses the data on cetacean distribution within Massachusetts Bay, such as those published by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS, 2006), to determine potential takes of marine mammals in the vicinity of project area. The NCCOS study used cetacean sightings from two sources:

(1)the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC) sightings database held at the University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 2001); and

(2)the Manomet Bird Observatory

(MBO)database, held at NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data contained survey efforts and sightings data from ship and aerial surveys and opportunistic sources between 1970 and 2005. The main data contributors included: Cetacean and Turtles Assessment Program (CETAP), Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, PCCS, International Fund for Animal Welfare, NOAA′s NEFSC, New England Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of Rhode Island. A total of 653,725 km (406,293 mi) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean observations were provisionally selected for the NCCOS study in order to minimize bias from uneven allocation of survey effort in both time and space. The sightings-per-unit-effort

(SPUE)was calculated for all cetacean species by month covering the southern Gulf of Maine study area, which also includes the project area (NCCOS, 2006). The MBO′s Cetacean and Seabird Assessment Program

(CSAP)was contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS NEFSC to provide an assessment of the relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States (MBO, 1987). The CSAP program was designed to be completely compatible with NMFS NEFSC databases so that marine mammal data could be compared directly with fisheries data throughout the time series during which both types of information were gathered. A total of 5,210 km (8,383 mi) of survey distance and 636 cetacean observations from the MBO data were included in the NCCOS analysis. Combined valid survey effort for the NCCOS studies included 567,955 km (913,840 mi) of survey track for small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226 mi) for large cetaceans (whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS study then combined these two data sets by extracting cetacean sighting records, updating database field names to match the NARWC database, creating geometry to represent survey tracklines and applying a set of data selection criteria designed to minimize uncertainty and bias in the data used. Owning to the comprehensiveness and total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean distribution and abundance study, NMFS calculated the estimated take number of marine mammals based on the most recent NCCOS report published in December 2006. A summary of seasonal cetacean distribution and abundance in the project area is provided above, in the Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity section. For a detailed description and calculation of the cetacean abundance data and sighting per unit effort (SPUE), please refer to the NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006). These data show that the upper limit of the relative abundance of North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins for all seasons, as calculated by SPUE in number of animals per square kilometer, is 0.0082, 0.0097, 0.0265, 0.0059, 0.0407, and 0.1314 n/km, respectively. In calculating the area density of these species from these linear density data, NMFS used 0.4 km (0.25 mi), which is a quarter the distance of the radius for visual monitoring (see Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting section below), as a conservative hypothetical strip width (W). Thus the area density

(D)of these species in the project area can be obtained by the following formula: D = SPUE/2W, Based on the calculation, the estimated take numbers per year for North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins, within the 120-dB ZOI of the LNG Port facility area of approximately 21 km2 (8.1 mi2) maximum ZOI, corrected for 50 percent underwater, are 21, 90, 165, 15, 104, and 336, respectively. This estimate is based on an average of 65 visits by LNG container ships to the project area per year (or approximately 1.25 visits per week), operating the vessels′ thrusters for dynamic positioning before offloading natural gas. It is expected that total amount of time of dynamic positioning is about 30 minutes, therefore, any marine mammals that are potentially exposed to noise levels about 120 dB re 1 microPa from container ships′ dynamic positioning would be brief. There is no danger of injury, death, or hearing impairment from the exposure to these noise levels. These numbers represent approximately 7, 3, 18, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.7 percent of the populations for these species, respectively. In addition, bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, killer whales, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals could also be taken by Level B harassment as a result of the deepwater LNG port project. The numbers of estimated take of these species are not available because they are rare in the project area. The population estimates of these marine mammal species and stock in the west North Atlantic basin are 81,588, 120,743, 89,700, 99,340, and 195,000 for bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals, respectively (Waring *et al.* , 2007). No population estimate is available for the North Atlantic stock of killer whales, however, their occurrence within the proposed project area is rare. Since the Massachusetts Bay represents only a small fraction of the west North Atlantic basin where these animals occur, and these animals do not congregate in the vicinity of the project area, NMFS believes that only relatively small numbers of these marine mammal species would be potentially affected by the Northeast Gateway LNG deepwater project. From the most conservative estimates of both marine mammal densities in the project area and the size of the 120-dB zone of (noise) influence (ZOI), the calculated number of individual marine mammals for each species that could potentially be harassed annually is small relative to the overall population size. Potential Impact on Habitat Operation of the Port and Pipeline Lateral will result in long-term effects on the marine environment, including alteration of seafloor conditions, continued disturbance of the seafloor, regular withdrawal of sea water, and regular generation of underwater noise. A small area (0.14 acre) along the Pipeline Lateral will be permanently altered (armored) at two cable crossings. In addition, the structures associated with the Port will occupy 4.8 acres of seafloor. An additional area of the seafloor of up to 38 acres will be subject to disturbance due to chain sweep while the buoys are occupied. The benthic community in the up-to 38 acres of soft bottom that may be swept by the anchor chains while EBRVs are docked will have limited opportunity to recover, so this area will experience a long-term reduction in benthic productivity. Each EBRV will require the withdrawal of an average of 4.97 million gallons per day of sea water for general ship operations during its 8-day stay at the Port. As with hydrostatic testing, plankton associated with the sea water will not likely survive this activity. Based on densities of plankton in Massachusetts Bay, it is estimated that sea water use during operations will consume, on a daily basis, about 3 200 x 1,010 phytoplankton cells (about several hundred grams of biomass), 6.5 x 108 zooplankters (equivalent to about 1.2 kg of copepods), and on the order of 30,000 fish eggs and 5,000 fish larvae. Also, the daily removal of sea water will reduce the food resources available for planktivorous organisms. However, the removal of these species is minor relative to the overall area they occupy and unlikely to measurably affect the food sources available to marine mammals. Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Measures All individuals onboard the EBRVs responsible for the navigation and lookout duties on the vessel must receive training prior to assuming navigation and lookout duties, a component of which will be training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures. Crew training of EBRV personnel will stress individual responsibility for marine mammal awareness and reporting. If a marine mammal is sighted by a crew member, an immediate notification will be made to the Person-in-Charge on board the vessel and the Northeast Port Manager, who will ensure that the required reporting procedures are followed. Vessel Strike Avoidance

(1)All EBRVs approaching or departing the port will comply with the Mandatory Ship Reporting

(MSR)system to keep apprised of right whale sightings in the vicinity. Vessel operators will also receive active detections from the passive acoustic array prior to and during transit through the northern leg of the Boston TSS where the buoys are installed.

(2)In response to active right whale sightings (detected acoustically or reported through other means such as the MSR or SAS), and taking into account safety and weather conditions, EBRVs will take appropriate actions to minimize the risk of striking whales, including reducing speed to 10 knots or less and alerting personnel responsible for navigation and lookout duties to concentrate their efforts.

(3)EBRVs will maintain speeds of 12 knots or less while in the TSS until reaching the vicinity of the buoys (except during the seasons and areas defined below, when speed will be limited to 10 knots or less). At 1.86 miles (3 km) from the NEG port, speed will be reduced to 3 knots, and to less than 1 knot at 1,640 ft (500 m) from the buoy.

(4)EBRVs will reduce transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic conditions dictate an alternative speed to maintain the safety or maneuverability of the vessel) from March 1 - April 30 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area is also known as the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area (SMA). 42°30′N 70°30′W 42°30′N 69v45′W 41°40′N 69°45′W 41°40′N 69°57′W 42°04.8′N 70°10′W 42°12′N 70°15′W 42°12′N 70°30′W 42°30′N 70°30′W

(5)EBRVs will reduce transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic conditions dictate an alternative speed to maintain the safety or maneuverability of the vessel) from April 1 - July 31 in all waters bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area is also known as the Great South Channel SMA. 42°30′N 69°45′W 42°30′N 67°27′W 42°09′N 67°08.4′W 41°00′N 69°05′W 41°40′N 69°45′W 42°30′N 69°45′W

(6)EBRVs are not expected to transit Cape Cod Bay. However, in the event transit through Cape Cod Bay is required, EBRVs will reduce transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic conditions dictate an alternative speed to maintain the safety or maneuverability of the vessel) from January 1 - May 15 in all waters in Cape Cod Bay, extending to all shorelines of Cape Cod Bay, with a northern boundary of 42°12′N latitude.

(7)In such cases where speeds in excess of the ten knot speed maximums as described above are required, the reasons for the deviation, the speed at which the vessel is operated, the area, and the time and duration of such deviation will be documented in the logbook of the vessel and reported to the NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike Coordinator. Passive Acoustic Monitoring

(PAM)Program An array of Auto-detection Buoys

(ABs)have been installed in the Boston TSS that meets the criteria specified in the recommendations developed by NOAA through consultation with the USCG under the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The system will be monitored during the LNG Port operations and will provide near real-time information on the presence of vocalizing whales in the shipping lanes. An archival array of acoustic recording units (ARUs), or “pop-ups,” has been installed around the port site that meets the criteria specified in the program developed by NOAA in consultation with the USCG under the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The ARUs will be in place for 5 years following initiation of operations to monitor the actual acoustic output of port operations and alert NOAA to any unanticipated adverse effects of port operations, such as large-scale abandonment of the area. Reporting The Project area is within the Mandatory Ship Reporting Area (MSRA), so all vessels entering and exiting the MSRA would report their activities to WHALESNORTH. During all phases of the Northeast Gateway LNG Port operation, sightings of any injured or dead marine mammals would be reported immediately to the USCG or NMFS, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by project activities. An annual report on marine mammal monitoring and mitigation would be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS Northeast Regional Office within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The annual report should include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the project area in the Massachusetts Bay during the period of LNG facility operation. Description of marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, and any behavioral changes and the context of the changes relative to operation activities shall also be included in the annual report. ESA On February 5, 2007, NMFS concluded consultation with MARAD and the USCG, under section 7 of the ESA, on the proposed construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG facility and issued a biological opinion. The finding of that consultation was that the construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of northern right, humpback, and fin whales, and is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, or blue whales and Kemp′s ridley, loggerhead, green or leatherback sea turtles. An incidental take statement

(ITS)was issued following NMFS′ issuance of the IHA. On November 15, 2007, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin submitted a letter to NMFS requesting an extension for the LNG Port construction into December 2007. Upon reviewing Northeast Gateway′s weekly marine mammal monitoring reports submitted under the previous IHA, NMFS recognized that the potential take of some marine mammals resulting from the LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral by Level B behavioral harassment likely had exceeded the original take estimates. Therefore, NMFS Northeast Region

(NER)reinitiated consultation with MARAD and USCG on the construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG facility. On November 30, 2007, NMFS NER issued a revised biological opinion, reflecting the revised construction time period and including a revised ITS. This revised biological opinion concluded that the construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of northern right, humpback, and fin whales, and is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, or blue whales. NMFS has concluded that issuance of this IHA renewal would not have impacts beyond what was analyzed in the November 30, 2007, biological opinion, so additional consultation is not required. NEPA MARAD and the USCG released a Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report

(EIR)for the proposed Northeast Gateway Port and Pipeline Lateral. A notice of availability was published by MARAD on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 62657). The Final EIS/EIR provides detailed information on the proposed project facilities, construction methods and analysis of potential impacts on marine mammal. NMFS was a cooperating agency (as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6)) in the preparation of the Draft and Final EISs. NMFS has reviewed the Final EIS and has adopted it. Therefore, the preparation of another EIS or EA is not warranted. Determinations NMFS has determined that the impact of operation of the Northeast Gateway Port Project may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals that may be in close proximity to the Northeast Gateway LNG facility and associated pipeline during its operation. These activities are expected to result in some local short-term displacement only of the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. Taking these two factors together, NMFS concludes that the activity will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks, as there will be no expected effects on annual rates of survival and reproduction of these species or stocks. This determination is further supported by the required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures described in this document and in NMFS′ Biological Opinion on this action. As a result of implementation of the described mitigation and monitoring measures, no take by injury or death would be requested, anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very unlikely due to the relatively low noise levels (and consequently small zone of impact). While the number of marine mammals that may be harassed will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the LNG Port facility, the estimated numbers of marine mammals to be harassed is small relative to the affected species or stock sizes. Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to Northeast Gateway for conducting LNG Port facility operations in Massachusetts Bay, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: May 15, 2008. Helen Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-11417 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment To Support Operations in the Pacific Theater AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the availability of a Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DSPEIS) for the growth and realignment of the United States Army to support Operations in the Pacific Theater. The Department of the Army has prepared a DSPEIS that evaluates the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects associated with alternatives for implementing the growth, realignment, and transformation of the Army's forces to support Operations in the Pacific Theater. Potential impacts have been analyzed in the DSPEIS at installations that are capable of supporting operations in the Pacific Theater. DATES: The public comment period will end 45 days after publication of a Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ADDRESSES: Send all written comments and suggestions concerning this DSPEIS to: Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Environmental Command, Building E4460, Attention: IMAE-PA 5179 Hoadley Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401. Comments may also be sent to: *APGR-USAECPublicComments@conus.army.mil.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Affairs Office at

(410)436-2556 or facsimile at

(410)436-1693 during normal business hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Army's Proposed Action and analysis within the DSPEIS covers those activities the Army may undertake from 2008 through 2013 to grow, realign, and transform its forces to support operations in the Pacific Theater. Implementation of the Proposed Action will ensure the proper capabilities exist to sustain operations and regional security in the Pacific Theater now and into the foreseeable future. The implementation of the Proposed Action will better meet military operational needs, national and regional security requirements, and the needs of the Army's Soldiers and their Families. To implement the Proposed Action, new units with critical military skills must be stationed at locations that are capable of supporting strategic deployment and mobilization requirements in the Pacific Theater. These stationing locations must be capable of accommodating unit training, garrison operations, maintenance activities, and the needs of Soldiers and their Families. The current global security environment is turbulent, unpredictable, and rapidly changing. It has placed considerable demands on the nation's military, and highlighted the need for the Army to correct shortfalls in high-demand skills while reassessing its force capabilities. No one has felt the impacts of the recent demands of the modern security environment more than Soldiers and their Families. To meet the challenges of the 21st century security environment, the Army requires the growth and restructuring of its forces to support operations across the Pacific Theater to sustain the broad range of missions required to promote regional, national, and global stability. The DSPEIS supplements the Army's Final Programmatic EIS for Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment (2007). The DSPEIS examines major Army training installations that were not in the 2007 PEIS, but are capable of supporting operations in the Pacific Theater and the ability of those installations to support new unit stationing actions. The DSPEIS includes analysis of specific actions that will need to be taken (such as the construction of housing and quality of life facilities, the construction of new training ranges and infrastructure, and changes in the intensity of use of maneuver land and firing ranges) to station new units as part of the Army's overall efforts to grow and realign the force. The Army has considered a full range of sites for implementing the Proposed Action. Alternative stationing locations that the Army is considering for supporting the Proposed Action include the major training installations the Army considered in its 2007 programmatic EIS as well as four additional installations in Hawaii and Alaska. Additional installations include Schofield Barracks Military Reservation (SBMR), HI; Fort Shafter, HI; Fort Richardson, AK; and Fort Wainwright, AK. Each of these installations could receive additional Soldiers as part of alternatives being examined. Alternatives in the DSPEIS include stationing of additional Combat Support

(CS)or Combat Service Support

(CSS)units or new support brigades. The following alternatives will be analyzed in the SPEIS:

(1)Support operations in the Pacific Theater by implementing Army-wide modular force and transformation recommendations within U.S. Army Pacific. This alternative involves the stationing of approximately 1,500-2,000 Soldiers at Army installations in Hawaii and Alaska;

(2)In addition to Army growth under Alternative 1, Alternative 2 includes growth and transformation of Army forces to support operations in the Pacific Theater by stationing additional Combat Support

(CS)and Combat Service Support

(CSS)units in locations capable of supporting these operations. The Army would station approximately 1,500-2,500 additional CS and CSS Soldiers beyond Alternative 1;

(3)In addition to Army growth under Alternatives 1 and 2, as part of Alternative 3 the Army would grow, transform, and realign forces by stationing additional support brigades in locations capable of supporting operations in the Pacific Theater. Support brigades could include the stationing of an additional Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (570 Soldiers), a Combat Aviation Brigade (2,800 Soldiers), or a Field Artillery Brigade (approximately 1,500 Soldiers). In addition to the above alternatives, the No Action Alternative will be considered and used as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. It is not a viable means for meeting the current and future strategic security and defense requirements of the nation. The No Action Alternative would retain U.S. Army forces in their current end strength and force structure. The No Action Alternative includes the implementation of stationing actions directed by Base Realignment and Closure legislation in 2005, Army Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army Modular Forces initiatives, and Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment decisions published in January 2008. The DSPEIS covers those activities required to implement unit stationing actions associated with Army growth and force structure realignment to support operations in the Pacific Theater. Actions the Army will take to support unit stationing include the construction of housing and quality of life facilities (i.e., gymnasiums, hospitals, shopping areas), the construction of new training ranges and infrastructure, and changes in the intensity of use of maneuver land and firing ranges associated with the increased frequency of training events. The DSPEIS identifies the environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with various unit stationing actions that could be implemented to support the Proposed Action. Decisions from the SPEIS will be tiered into sitespecific NEPA analysis at the installation level after stationing decisions are made. The Army invites full public participation to promote open communication and better decision making. All persons and organizations that have an interest in the growth and realignment of the Army's forces and associated stationing actions are invited to participate in this NEPA evaluation process. Assistance will be provided upon request to anyone having difficulty understanding how to participate. Written comments on the DSPEIS will be accepted for 45 days following the publication of a Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Information on the DSPEIS will be posted on the U.S. Army Environmental Command's Web site, *http://www.aec.army.mil,* for public access during the public comment period. Dated: May 14, 2008. Addison D. Davis, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health). [FR Doc. E8-11256 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Intent To Hold an Open Meeting of the North Dakota River Task Force Established by the Missouri River Protection and Improvement Act of 2000 (Title VII) AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The duties of the Task Force are to prepare and approve a plan for the use of the funds made available under Title VII to promote conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed, control and remove the sediment from the Missouri River, protect recreation on the Missouri River from sedimentation, and protect Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion. DATES: North Dakota Missouri River Task Force established by the Missouri River Protection and Improvement Act of 2000 will hold a meeting on June 25, 2008, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Best Western Doublewood Inn located at 1400 East Interchange Avenue in Bismarck, ND. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Bentley at (402)-995-2714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The objectives of the Task Force are to prepare and approve a plan for the use of the funds made available under Title VII, develop and recommend to the Secretary of the Army ways to implement critical restoration projects meeting the goals of the plan, and determine if these projects primarily benefit the Federal Government. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the task force; however, statements and questions should be submitted in advance. For additional information, contact Laura Bentley, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 106 South 15th Street, Omaha, NE 68102-1618, 402-995-2714. David B. Olson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [FR Doc. E8-11406 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-62-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 21, 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 15, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of English Language Acquisitions *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Foreign Language Assistance Program for Local Educational Agencies: Annual Performance Report. *Frequency:* Semi-Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 127. Burden Hours: 6,350. *Abstract:* The purpose is to implement a data collection process for a new semi-annual reporting for Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA)purposes for the Foreign Language Assistance Program

(FLAP)for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs). These data are necessary to assess the performance of the FLAP for LEAs in meeting its stated goals and objectives and report to ED's Budget Service. 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 3021. 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. E8-11348 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests. 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: An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has been requested by June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the emergency review should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Bridget Dooling, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget

(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 this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. 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. ED 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 respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: May 15, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Student Assistance General Provisions—Subpart K—Cash Management. *Abstract:* These regulations comprise the existing provisions of the Student Assistance General Provisions guidance regarding cash management. Information collection under these regulations relates to cash management requirements and practices for institutions participating in the Title IV, Higher Education Act (HEA), programs. This request is for approval of reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the attached final regulations related to the administrative requirements of the Regulations Governing the Student Assistance General Provisions as revised by the TEACH Grant final regulations. The information collection requirements in these regulations are necessary to determine eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. *Additional Information:* The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) requests that OMB grant an emergency clearance of 1845-0038. This emergency clearance is necessary due to new burden created from regulatory changes resulting from 34 CFR 668.165, the new regulations for the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program. 34 CFR 668.165 requires institutions to notify recipients of when and the amount of their Teach Grant disbursements, in addition to their right to cancel or reduce their grant amount, as well as procedures the institution has adopted for the recipient to contact their school about cancellation or grant reduction. The associated information collection provisions relating to these requirements are accounted for in 1845-0038. These regulatory changes resulted from public comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15336). The Department requests emergency clearance by June 12, 2008 so it can implement procedures to make Teach Grants available by the statutory effective date of July 1, 2008. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 108,834. Burden Hours: 978,333. 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 3691. 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 the Internet address *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. E8-11350 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests. 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: An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget

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

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

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

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. ED 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 respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: May 15, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Federal Student Aid *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Eligibility Regulations. *Abstract:* Eligible and participating institutions of higher education who participate in the TEACH Grant program, operate the program consistent with these regulations. Information is necessary to make determinations regarding compliance with the implementing regulations. This request is for approval of reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the attached proposed regulations related to the TEACH Grant administrative requirements for the Title IV, HEA programs. The information collection requirements in these proposed regulations are necessary to determine eligibility to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. *Additional Information:* The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) requests that OMB grant an emergency clearance of the proposed regulations governing the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program. Sections 420L through 420O of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, (the HEA) provides for TEACH Grants to eligible students at eligible and participating institutions of higher education. The TEACH Grant Program was established under the HEA by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (the CCRAA). In accordance with section 420O of the CCRAA, the effective date for the TEACH Grant Program is July 1, 2008. The Department is requesting an emergency clearance of these TEACH Grant regulations because the regular clearance process would not enable us to make an OMB-approved TEACH Grant available to participants by the statutory effective date for the TEACH Grant Program. The Department requests emergency clearance of the proposed regulations by June 12, 2008, in order to obtain an OMB Control Number to be used in the TEACH Grant Final Regulations which are being prepared for submission. *Frequency:* On Occasion; Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 2,276,504. Burden Hours: 468,267. 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 3615. 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 the Internet address *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. E8-11351 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement. SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Argentina. This subsequent arrangement requests to downblend material subject to an earlier subsequent arrangement—published in the **Federal Register** July 9, 2004 (69 FR 41460)—to a different level than previously approved. Under the 2004 subsequent arrangement, Comision Nacional de Energia Atomica

(CNEA)was approved to downblend material from 89.79% enriched into low-enriched uranium (LEU). Under a contract with DOE's Global Threat Reduction Initiative program, CNEA has submitted the attached request to downblend 304 g of that material to 58% weight of isotope U 235 rather than to LEU as originally approved. The material will be fabricated into test plates in Argentina and sent to Idaho National Laboratory for testing and irradiation. The material will remain in the United States after irradiation. In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security. This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice. For the Department of Energy. Richard S. Goorevich, Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-11432 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP06-5-008] Empire Pipeline Inc.; Notice of Application May 14, 2008. Take notice that on April 30, 2008, Empire Pipeline, Inc. (EPI), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in Docket No. CP06-5-008, an application under section 7of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission on December 21, 2006. EPI requests authorization to amend its certificate to remove the 1.34 mile “Lift and Lay” segment, retain the original pipeline, clarify the capacity of its existing and authorized facilities, and make three corrections to its *pro forma* tariff. The application is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call

(202)502-8659 or TTY,

(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this petition should be directed to David W. Reitz, Attorney for Empire Pipeline, Inc., 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, NY 14221, at

(716)857-7949, by fax at

(716)857-7206, or at *reitzd@natfuel.com.* Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment

(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement

(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* June 4, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11335 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF08-10-000] Atmos Pipeline and Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fort Necessity Gas Storage Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues May 14, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment

(EA)that will address the environmental impacts of the Fort Necessity Gas Storage Project (project) proposed by Atmos Pipeline and Storage, LLC (Atmos). The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize the project. This notice explains the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help us determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on June 13, 2008. This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by an Atmos representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings. Summary of the Proposed Project Atmos proposes to develop a natural gas storage facility within the Fort Necessity salt dome near Winnsboro, Franklin Parish, Louisiana. The proposed storage design would have the capacity to store 15 Bcf of working gas and 9.75 Bcf of cushion gas, an average daily injection rate of 375 MMscfd, a maximum daily injection rate of 500 MMscfd, and a maximum daily withdrawal rate of 750 MMscfd. Project facilities would also include interconnections to existing interstate natural gas transmission systems. *The proposed project includes:* • A new natural gas storage facility consisting of three 7.1 million barrel, or 8.25 billion cubic feet (Bcf), each with a cavern well and well pad; • A 42,300 horsepower

(hp)compressor station consisting of nine 4,700 hp reciprocating compressors (five would be driven by electric motors and four would be driven by natural gas motors with emission controls), and ancillary facilities; • And electric substation; • A dehydration facility rated for 500 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd); • A leaching plant with associated pumps, tanks, and piping; • About 0.02 mile of 24-inch-diameter interconnecting gas pipeline and a metering station to tie into an existing 30-inch-diameter Tennessee Gas Pipeline

(TGP)pipeline; • About 0.9 mile of 36-inch-diameter interconnecting gas pipeline and a metering station to tie into the existing 30- and 36-inch-diameter Columbia Gulf Transmission

(CGT)pipelines; • About 6.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter interconnecting gas pipeline and a metering station to tie into the existing 30- and 36-inch-diameter ANR Pipeline Company

(ANR)pipeline; • About 0.9 mile of gas pipeline from the compressor station to the three cavern wells (about 0.1 mile of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and about 0.8 mile of 30-inch-diameter pipeline); • About 0.3 mile of 2-inch-diameter instrument air pipeline from the leaching plant to the three solution-mining wells; • About 0.3 mile of 2-inch-diameter diesel injection pipeline from the leaching plant to the three solution-mining wells; • Four water supply wells and well pads; • About 0.4 mile of water supply pipeline from the water supply wells to the leaching plant including about 0.1 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline, 0.2 mile of 12-inch-diameter, and 0.1 mile of 20-inch-diameter pipeline; • About 0.3 mile of 20-inch-diameter pipeline to return brine from the solution-mining wells to the leaching plant; • Four or five brine disposal wells; • About 2.2 miles of brine disposal pipeline from the leaching plant to the brine disposal wells including about 1.4 miles of 16-inch-diameter , 0.2 mile of 12-inch-diameter, and 0.6 mile of 8-inch-diameter pipeline; • Appurtenant facilities including delivery piping, line heaters, pressure vessels, and valves; and • About 5.5 miles of access roads, 1.8 miles of which would be new roads. Atmos states that the project would provide new storage capacity for interstate commerce. It would interconnect with the existing interstate pipelines operated by TGP, CGT, and ANR. Atmos proposes beginning construction in 2009 and to have Cavern No. 1 in service by 2011, Cavern No. 2 in service by 2013, and Cavern No. 3 in service by 2015. The general location of the proposed pipeline and associated facilities are shown in the figure included as Appendix 1. 1 1 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices, other than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call

(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the Public Participation section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Atmos. Nonjurisdictional Facilities In addition to the facilities proposed by Atmos, the proposed project has associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The local electricity provider, Entergy Corporation, would construct an electric power line to Atmos's proposed electric substation. We 2 have determined that these nonjurisdictional facilities will be addressed in the EA. 2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. Land Requirements for Construction As proposed, construction of the project would require about 168.6 acres. Of this total, about 30.6 acres would be required permanently for aboveground facilities (including the compressor station, leaching plant, meter stations, wells, and electrical substation), and 5.6 acres would be required for permanent access roads. Atmos would construct the storage facilities within three parcels of land: a 254-acre parcel Atmos would own and two parcels totaling about 989 acres that are privately owned. Atmos would use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way to construct the proposed 24-inch-diameter TGP interconnect gas pipeline, the 36-inch-diameter CGT interconnect gas pipeline, and the 30-inch-diameter ANR interconnect gas pipeline. The permanent right-of-way width for these pipelines would be 50 feet. Atmos would require about 78.7 acres to construct these facilities and would require about 39.4 acres for their operation. Atmos would use a common 125-foot-wide right-of-way for the access roads and pipelines to each of the three cavern storage wells. The pipeline from the water supply wells to the leaching plant, and the cavern gas pipeline between the compressor station and the leaching plant would require a common 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 75-foot-wide easement for operation. The brine pipelines would require a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way and a 50-foot-wide operational easement. About 4.4 acres of additional temporary workspace would be required at the crossings of roads, waterbodies, and wetlands. At this time, Atmos has identified one 1.3-acre area within the storage field that it would use for construction staging. Based on preliminary information, construction of the proposed project facilities would affect a total of about 168.6 acres of land (including construction right-of-ways and aboveground facilities). This does not include land that would be disturbed by lay down areas, which is still being determined. Following construction, about 67.2 acres would be maintained as permanent right-of-way, about 30.6 acres of land would be maintained as new aboveground facility sites, and about 5.6 acres would be used for access roads. The remaining 56.2 acres of temporary construction rights-of-way and any other additional areas required for extra workspaces, pipe storage or contractor yards would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use. After the storage caverns are developed, Atmos anticipates that it would abandon the leaching plant, water supply wells, brine disposal wells, and related water and brine pipelines. Atmos would file an application with the FERC to abandon these facilities when appropriate. The EA Process The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action when it considers whether or not an interstate natural gas pipeline should be approved. The FERC will use the EA to consider the environmental impact that could result if Atmos's project is authorized under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals to be considered by the Commission. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. With this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EA. All comments received will be considered during preparation of the EA. Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in the EA. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources. The EA will be mailed to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected landowners; commentors; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. To ensure that your comments are considered, please follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice. Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has already initiated its NEPA review under its Pre-filing Process. The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. With this notice, we are asking federal, state, and local governmental agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below (see *Public Participation* ). Currently Identified Environmental Issues The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project. We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the project site and the facility information provided by Atmos. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis. • Potential impacts due to construction of the storage caverns by salt leaching. • Temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands and development of appropriate mitigation. • Native American and tribal concerns. • Potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, including waterbird nesting areas and migrating birds. • Potential effect on federally and state-listed species. • Potential impacts to existing land uses. • Potential visual effects of the aboveground facilities on surrounding areas. • Potential impacts and potential benefits of construction workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy. • Potential impacts to local air and noise quality associated with construction and operation. • Alternative alignments for the pipeline routes and alternative sites for the aboveground facilities. • Public safety and potential hazards associated with the transport of natural gas and the proposed compressor facilities. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the proposed project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please carefully follow these instructions: • *Send an original and two copies of your letter to:* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. • Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2. • Reference Docket No. PF08-10-000 on the original and both copies. • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before June 13, 2008. Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the link to “Documents and Filings” and “eFiling.” eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “Sign up” or “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “ *Quick Comment* ” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf* . Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket or project number(s). Once Atmos formally files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's web site. Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission. Environmental Mailing List An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing list for this project. If you do not want to send comments at this time, but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be removed from the Commission's environmental mailing list. Availability of Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC

(3372)or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the “eLibrary link.” Click on the eLibrary link, select “General Search” and enter the project docket number excluding the last three digits ( *i.e.* , PF06-21) in the “Docket Number” field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings. In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* . Site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. Finally, Atmos has established an Internet Web site for this project at *www.atmosenergy.com/fortnecessity* . The Web site includes a description of the project, a map of the proposed storage facility and pipeline routes, and answers to frequently asked questions. You can also request additional information or provide comments directly to Atmos at 1-(888) 877-4006 or *fortnecessity@atmosenergy.com* . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11331 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Filings May 15, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP08-377-000. *Applicants:* Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. *Description:* Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.'s Petition for Waivers of Regulations and Policy, In Support of Its Ohio Retail Unbundling and Open Access Program. *Filed Date:* 05/13/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080514-5068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-378-000. *Applicants:* Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company. *Description:* Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Interruptible Revenue Sharing Report for the period 4/1/07 through 3/31/08. *Filed Date:* 05/14/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080515-0274. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP06-398-001. *Applicants:* MoBay Storage Hub LLC. *Description:* MoBay Storage Hub LLC submits the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A hereto supplement its Exhibit P pro forma FERC Gas Tariff. *Filed Date:* 05/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080514-0198. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, May 23, 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. E8-11327 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12622-001] Black River Felts Mills LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process May 14, 2008. a. *Type of Filing:* Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process. b. *Project No.:* 12622-001. c. *Date Filed:* April 2, 2008. d. *Submitted By:* Black River Felts Mills LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Felts Mills Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Black River, in Jefferson County, New York. No federal lands would be occupied by the project works. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations. h. *Potential Applicant Contact:* Keith Silliman, Black River Felts Mills, LLC, c/o Brookfield Power U.S. Holdings America Co., 225 Greenway Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY 13088;

(315)413-2715; e-mail— *keith.silliman@brookfieldpower.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* John Costello at

(202)502-6119; or e-mail at *john.costello@ferc.gov.* j. Black River Felts Mills LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on April 2, 2008. Black River Felts Mills LLC provided public notice of its request on April 8, 2008. In a letter dated May 13, 2008, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Black River Felts Mills LLC request to use the Traditional Licensing Process. k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:

(a)The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402;

(b)NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and

(c)the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by Section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2. l. With this notice, we are designating Black River Felts Mills LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. m. Black River Felts Mills LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(315)413-2715; e-mail— *keith.silliman@brookfieldpower.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* John Costello at

(202)502-6119; or e-mail at *john.costello@ferc.gov* . j. Black River Felts Mills LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on April 2, 2008. Black River Felts Mills LLC provided public notice of its request on April 8, 2008. In a letter dated May 13, 2008, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Black River Felts Mills LLC request to use the Traditional Licensing Process. k. *With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:*

(a)The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402;

(b)NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. o. Register online at *http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11334 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12603-002] Energy Recycling Company; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit May 14, 2008. Take notice that Energy Recycling Company, permittee for the proposed Klamath County Pump Storage Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on December 21, 2005, and would have expired on November 30, 2008. 1 The project would have been located two miles southwest of the town of Lorella, in Klamath County, Oregon. 1 *Energy Recycling Company,* 113 FERC ¶ 62,225. The permittee filed the request on April 29, 2008, and the preliminary permit for Project No. 12603 shall remain in effect through the thirtieth day after issuance of this notice unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or legal holiday as described in section 18 CFR 385.2007, in which case the effective date is the first business day following that day. New applications involving this project site, to the extent provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on the next business day. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11332 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8568-4] Availability of FY 07 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 15 Local Agencies AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability of Clean Air Act, section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports. SUMMARY: EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 15 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, FL; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Memphis-Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department, TN). The 23 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' FY 07 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection. The evaluation for the remaining local government of Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District will be published at a later date. ADDRESSES: The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Persinger

(404)562-9048 for information concerning the state and local agencies of Alabama and Kentucky; Miya Smith

(404)562-9091 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Sean Flynn

(404)562-9093 for the state agency of Mississippi; Mary Echols

(404)562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia, and for the state and local agencies of North Carolina; and Marilyn Sabadaszka

(404)562-9001 for the state agency of South Carolina and for the state and local agencies of Tennessee. They may be contacted at the above Region 4 address. Dated: May 12, 2008. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Deputy Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E8-11382 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1019; FRL-8364-3] Nicotine Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for the pesticide nicotine. The Agency's risk assessments and other related documents are available in the nicotine Docket. The sole remaining nicotine registration, a restricted use insecticide registered for use only on greenhouse ornamentals and effective against adult whiteflies, aphids, and thrips, is being voluntarily cancelled by the registrant. EPA has reviewed nicotine through the reregistration eligibility decision-making process, which is used by the Agency to ensure that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Bloom, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8019; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *bloom.jill@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA has completed a RED for the pesticide nicotine under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. The sole remaining nicotine registration is a restricted use insecticide registered for use only on greenhouse ornamentals and effective against adult whiteflies, aphids, and thrips. It is not registered for use on food. EPA has determined that the data base to support nicotine is incomplete. The Agency has relied primarily on information available from the open literature to assess the risks associated with the use of nicotine. Although there is considerable information, particularly toxicity information, available in the literature, very little of it is appropriate for the routes of exposure relevant to the pesticidal use of nicotine, and much of it relates to derivatives of nicotine not present in the pesticide. Data on worker and residential exposures are also very limited. The data gaps create a substantial amount of uncertainty in the Agency's risk assessment, and risk estimates derived from the available data exceed the Agency's level of concern in certain areas. The RED identifies data that would be needed to refine the risk assessment for nicotine. Rather than develop the data needed to refine the assessment, the registrant has requested the cancellation of its nicotine registration, effective December 31, 2013. The Agency has made its risk management decision for nicotine, and has determined that the phase-out as requested by the registrant is warranted due to the extremely low volume of nicotine use and the benefits associated with its use in production of greenhouse ornamentals. In light of the risk estimates derived from the available data, the Agency is requiring implementation of label amendments designed to reduce the potential for exposure and reduce risk during the phase-out period, including prohibiting the use of nicotine on plants grown for cut flowers, prohibiting use in non-commercial greenhouses, and restricting consumers' access to treated greenhouses for 24 hours following the last application of the nicotine product and until ventilation criteria have been met. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.” List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: May 8, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11395 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8569-2] EPA Board of Scientific Counselors; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's

(EPA)Board of Scientific Counselors

(BOSC)will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app.2 section 9(c). The purpose of BOSC is to counsel the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (AA/ORD), on the operation of ORD's research program. It is determined that BOSC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. Inquiries may be directed to Ms. Lorelei Kowalski, Designated Federal Officer, BOSC, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development (mail code 8104-R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone

(202)564-3408 or *kowalski.lorelei@epa.gov.* Dated: May 15, 2008. George Gray, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. [FR Doc. E8-11412 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8569-3] Disallowing Management Fees in EPA Assistance Agreements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The term “management fees or similar charges” refers to expenses added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities, or for other similar costs which are not allowable under EPA assistance agreements. EPA will not, as a matter of policy, allow recipients of EPA financial assistance to charge management fees to their agreements with the Agency. Recipients will have actual notice of EPA's policy prohibiting management fees through a term and condition and competitive solicitation announcements. EPA funds for financial assistance are limited. The Agency has decided that, in the absence of contrary statutory direction, the public's interest in supporting projects that promote environmental protection is best served by ensuring that EPA financial assistance is used only to pay for costs that are allocable to the specific project receiving EPA financial assistance, and are reasonable and necessary for the performance of the project. Management fees or similar charges may not be used to improve or expand the capacity of organizations carrying out EPA funded projects, except to the extent authorized by the terms of the agreement as a direct cost of carrying out the scope of work. EPA's “no management fee” policy is consistent with OMB Circular A-122, as codified at 2 CFR Part 230. According to 2 CFR Part 230, Appendix B, Item 9, contributions to contingency reserves for unforeseen events are unallowable. Therefore, management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs and approved indirect rates are not allowable under EPA assistance agreements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hanlon, 202-564-2865. Dated: May 15, 2008. Howard Corcoran, Director, Office of Grants and Debarment. [FR Doc. E8-11409 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8568-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0058] Draft Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System

(IRIS)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a public comment period for the external review draft document titled, “Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (EPA/635/R-08/008A). The EPA intends to consider comments and recommendations from the public and the expert panel meeting, which will be scheduled at a later date and announced in the **Federal Register** , when EPA finalizes the draft document. The public comment period will provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the document. EPA intends to forward public comments submitted in accordance with this notice to the external peer-review panel prior to the meeting for their consideration. EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination public review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. The draft document and EPA's peer-review charge are available via the Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea* . When finalizing the draft document, EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice. DATES: The public comment period begins May 21, 2008, and ends July 21, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by July 21, 2008. EPA intends to submit comments from the public received by this date for consideration by the external peer review panel. ADDRESSES: The draft “Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's

(NCEA)home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at *http://www.epa.gov/ncea* . A limited number of paper copies are available from NCEA's Technical Information Staff, telephone: 703-347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and the document title. Comments may be submitted electronically via *http://www.regulations.gov* , by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* . If you have questions about the document, contact Susan Rieth, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-8582; facsimile: 703-347-8689; or e-mail: *rieth.susan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System

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

(RfDs)and inhalation reference concentrations

(RfCs)for chronic health effects, and oral slope factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined with specific exposure information, government and private entities can use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public health. II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0058 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax:* 202-566-1753. • *Mail:* Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752. • *Hand Delivery:* The OEI Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by e-mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0058. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center. Dated: April 24, 2008. Rebecca Clark, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E8-11379 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0328; FRL-8362-3] Pesticides; Final Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Environmental Hazard General Labeling Statements on Outdoor Residential Use Products; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing the availability of a Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) entitled “Environmental Hazard General Labeling Statements on Outdoor Residential Use Products.” This PR Notice was issued by the Agency on May 9, 2008 and is identified as PR Notice 2008-1. PR Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)to inform pesticide registrants and other interested persons about important policies, procedures, and registration related decisions, and serve to provide guidance to pesticide registrants and OPP personnel. This particular PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant concerning new environmental hazard statements that are designed to replace language created for agricultural products with statements that are easier for consumers to understand. The new environmental hazard statements are divided by product type (e.g., liquid ready-to-use, broadcast granular), and recommends specific language for each product type to minimize risks to the human health and the environment, with emphasis on reducing risks to water. Revisions to product labels using these new statements may be made by notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Roelofs, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-2964; fax number:

(703)308-1850; e-mail address: *roelofs.jim @epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required to register, regulate or label pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0328. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Guidance Does this PR Notice Provide? This final PR Notice provides guidance to the registrant concerning new environmental hazard statements that are designed to replace language created for agricultural products with statements that are easier for consumers to understand. The new environmental hazard statements are divided by product type (e.g., liquid ready-to-use, broadcast granular), and recommends specific language for each product type to minimize risks to the human health and the environment, with emphasis on reducing risks to water. Revisions to product labels using these new statements may be made by notification. III. Do PR Notices Contain Binding Requirements? The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decisionmakers and to pesticide registrants. While the requirements in the statutes and Agency regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. Likewise, pesticide registrants may assert that the guidance is not appropriate generally or not applicable to a specific pesticide or situation. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental hazard statements, Pesticides and pests, Residential. Dated: May 9, 2008. Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11293 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410; FRL-8568-5] Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's Remote-Handled Waste Characterization Program at Savannah River Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 45 days on, the proposed approval of the radioactive, remote-handled (RH), transuranic

(TRU)waste characterization program implemented by the Central Characterization Project

(CCP)at Savannah River Site (SRS). This waste, which originated from the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL), is intended for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP)in New Mexico. In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the characterization of RH TRU debris waste from SRS-CCP during a baseline inspection (and follow-up inspections) conducted the weeks of July 17-19, 2007, July 31—August 2, 2007, and December 4-5, 2007. Using the systems and processes developed as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Carlsbad Field Office

(CBFO)program to characterize RH TRU waste, EPA verified whether DOE could adequately characterize RH TRU waste consistent with the Compliance Criteria. The results of EPA's evaluation of the SRS-CCP program and its proposed approval are described in the Agency's inspection report, which is available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES . We will consider public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES . This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes evaluated by EPA and EPA's proposed approval. As required by the 40 CFR 194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public comments received, and if appropriate, finalize the reports responding to the relevant public comments, and a final report and approval letter to DOE. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* to *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov* . • *Fax* : 202-566-1741. • *Mail* : Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410. The Agency'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* . *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* . As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if hard copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn, Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations, Mail Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9601; fax number: 202-343-2305; e-mail address: *joglekar.rajani@epa.gov* or *feltcorn.ed@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background DOE is developing the WIPP, near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico, as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act

(LWA)of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. No. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials that have atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges. TRU waste is itself divided into two categories, based on its level of radioactivity. Contact-handled

(CH)TRU waste accounts for about 97 percent of the volume of TRU waste currently destined for the WIPP. It is packaged in 55-gallon metal drums or in metal boxes and can be handled under controlled conditions without any shielding beyond the container itself. The maximum radiation dose at the surface of a CH TRU waste container is 200 millirems per hour. CH waste primarily emits alpha particles that are easily shielded by a sheet of paper or the outer layer of a person's skin. Remote-handled

(RH)TRU waste emits more radiation than CH TRU waste and must therefore be both handled and transported in shielded casks. Surface radiation levels of unshielded containers of remote-handled transuranic waste exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH waste primarily emits gamma radiation, which is very penetrating and requires concrete, lead, or steel to block it. On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that

(1)prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from a site until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of § 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in § 194.8 (revised July 2004). Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires EPA to conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste generator/storage sites of their TRU waste characterization capabilities before approving their program and the waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA's inspection and approval process gives EPA

(a)discretion in establishing technical priorities,

(b)the ability to accommodate variation in the site's waste characterization capabilities, and

(c)flexibility in scheduling site WC inspections. As described in section 194.8(b), EPA's baseline inspections evaluate each WC process component (equipment, procedures, and personnel training/experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in characterizing TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP. During an inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and tracking requirements under § 194.24. A baseline inspection may describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste characterization processes [§ 194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a baseline inspection approval must specify what subsequent WC program changes or expansion should be reported to EPA [§ 194.8(b)(4)]. The Agency is required to assign Tier 1

(T1)and Tier 2

(T2)to the reportable changes depending on their potential impact on data quality. A T1 designation requires that the site must notify EPA of proposed changes to the approved components of an individual WC process (such as radioassay equipment or personnel), and EPA must also approve the change before it can be implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation allows the site to implement changes to the approved components of individual WC processes (such as visual examination procedures) but requires EPA notification. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to evaluate technical adequacy before approval. EPA inspections conducted to evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up inspections under the authority of § 194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up inspections, if warranted, EPA may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a baseline approval under the authority of § 194.24(h). The site inspection and approval process outlined in § 194.8 requires EPA to issue a **Federal Register** notice proposing the baseline compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review, and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45 days. The report must describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the site, as well as their compliance with § 194.24 requirements. EPA previously issued a preliminary approval of DOE's general framework for characterizing RH waste on March 26, 2004 (Docket A-98-49, Item II-B2-21). This approval requires DOE to provide site-specific RH waste characterization plans and characterization procedures for EPA approval prior to implementing them for characterizing RH waste. III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision EPA has performed a baseline inspection of RH TRU waste characterization activities at SRS-CCP (EPA Inspection No. EPA-SRS-CCP-RH-7.07-8). The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify that the RH waste characterization program implemented at SRS-CCP for characterizing RH TRU, retrievably-stored, debris waste is adequate. The waste characterized by the SRS-CCP is RH debris waste from the demolition of a hot cell laboratory at Battelle Columbus Laboratory

(BCL)that was shipped to SRS for characterization prior to disposal at WIPP. EPA evaluated whether this RH waste meets the regulatory characterization requirements at 40 CFR 194.24. The inspection's sole focus was to evaluate the records that had been assembled to document RH TRU waste characterization activities, including recently performed modeling, interpretation, and additional calculations based on previously generated measurement data for Battelle Columbus Laboratory Demolition Project (BCLDP) RH debris Waste Stream No. SR-RL-BCLDP.001. Like the RH debris waste in 16 canisters from LANL that EPA approved in February 2008 (see Air Docket No. A-98-49, II-A4-89), this is a discrete waste stream. There will be no further waste generation and characterization activities relative to this waste. This proposed approval, hence, is directed to a discrete set of 87 drum liners within this RH debris waste stream that are currently stored at SRS, as supported by the documentation the EPA inspection team evaluated during this inspection. Although these wastes are currently stored at SRS, the waste generation and characterization activities covered by this proposed approval were performed at the BCLDP, as stated previously. This proposed approval is limited to RH debris waste from BCLDP only. Note that this is a retrospective approval of the RH debris waste from BCLDP, and no additional RH debris waste from BCLDP remains to be characterized for WIPP disposal. Any BCLDP-related RH waste that SRS-CCP may characterize upon the approval of WC activities discussed in this report will require EPA approval as a Tier 1

(T1)change. Upon approval of the RH TRU waste characterization processes discussed in this report, if SRS-CCP embarks on characterizing RH waste other than that generated at BCLDP for WIPP disposal, a separate baseline inspection and approval will be necessary. That is, any SRS RH waste destined for WIPP disposal characterized by SRS-CCP or another program remains subject to EPA's baseline inspection and approval. The purpose of the SRS-CCP RH WC inspection was to evaluate the adequacy of the site's WC programs for 87 drum liners in a single RH debris waste stream for disposal at WIPP. The 87 drum liners of RH debris in this waste stream were generated from the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the Building JN-1 Hot Cell Laboratory at the Jefferson North facility, which operated from 1955 until D&D began in 1988, under the BCLDP. (See page 8 for additional details of the waste generation in Section 8.0 of the inspection report found in EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410.) The EPA inspection team identified one finding during the July 2007 inspection (see Attachment A of the inspection report found in EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410). SRS-CCP revised specific documents to address the finding and submitted them for EPA review following the initial July inspection. The EPA inspection team reviewed the revised documents and subsequently met with SRS-CCP personnel in December 2007 to discuss the changes to WC documents addressing the EPA finding and examine additional objective evidence. Upon completing their reviews, the EPA inspection team determined that the revised documents adequately addressed all aspects of the EPA finding. Accordingly, EPA has determined that the records documenting SRS-CCP's RH WC program represented activities that were technically adequate and the finding has been resolved. EPA, therefore, is proposing to approve the SRS-CCP RH WC program for the 87 RH TRU drum liners in SRS RH Waste Stream No. SR-RL-BCLDP.001 evaluated during this baseline inspection that is described and documented in the accompanying baseline inspection report. This approval includes the following:

(1)The acceptable knowledge

(AK)process for the 87 drum liners of RH retrievably-stored TRU debris in the waste stream designated Waste Stream No. SRS-RL-BCLDP.001 currently stored at the TRU storage pads in the E Area of SRS.

(2)The radiological characterization

(RC)process using dose-to-curie

(DTC)and modeling-derived scaling factors, supported by radionuclide data from the analysis of 69 swipe samples, for assigning radionuclide values to 87 drum liners of RH retrievably-stored TRU debris in one waste stream, designated as SRS-RL-BCLDP.001, that is documented in CCP-AK-LANL-501, Revision 2, and detailed in the inspection report found in EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0410.

(3)The visual examination

(VE)process to identify Waste Material Parameters and the physical form of the waste.

(4)The WIPP Waste Information System

(WWIS)to submit data for both characterization and certification to WWIS for RH TRU waste.

(5)The attainment of pertinent Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Since no additional WC activities are expected to occur relative to the 87 drum liners of RH debris waste, no changes to the WC activities evaluated during the baseline inspection are anticipated. EPA, therefore, does not expect SRS-CCP to make additional revisions to the documents that were reviewed as part of this inspection and proposed approval limited to the WC processes specific to the 87 drum liners evaluated during the July, August, and December 2007 inspections. In the event that SRS-CCP makes changes to the WC components proposed for approval or implements them to characterize additional waste from the BCLDP activity (e.g., solids or soil/gravel) associated with D&D activities at Building JN-1 at the Battelle Columbus Laboratory, EPA will consider changes that have the potential to affect WC activities to be Tier 1

(T1)changes, as stated above. The inspection report does not list specific T1 or Tier 2

(T2)designations relative to these 87 waste liners and the WC components proposed for the approval at this time. IV. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the Agency's inspection of SRS-CCP in the public docket as described in ADDRESSES . In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 45 days to comment on these documents. The Agency requests comments on the proposed approval decision, as described in the inspection report. EPA will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental information as described in Section 1.B. above. EPA will not make a determination of compliance before the 45-day comment period ends. At the end of the public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant public comments and revise the inspection report as necessary. If appropriate, the Agency will then issue a final approval letter and inspection report, both of which will be posted on the WIPP Web site. Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in Carlsbad, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. Dated: May 9, 2008. Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. [FR Doc. E8-11381 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0340; FRL-8364-7] Disulfoton; Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Amend to Terminate Uses of Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the registrant to amend their registrations to terminate certain uses of products containing the pesticide disulfoton. The request would terminate disulfoton use in or on barley and wheat. The request would also terminate the use of the 15% granular formulation of disulfoton, Di-Syston 15G, (EPA Reg. No. 264-723) on broccoli and ornamentals (commercial uses). Additionally, the request would terminate the use of Di-Syston 15G and the emulsifiable concentrate formulation of disulfoton, Di-Syston 8 EC, (EPA Reg. No. 264-734) on potatoes. The registrant's request includes amending the disulfoton technical product registration (EPA Reg. No. 264-725) to terminate potato, barley, and wheat uses. The request would not terminate the last disulfoton products registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws the request within this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0340, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0340. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Miederhoff, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)347-8028; fax number:

(703)308-7070; e-mail address: *miederhoff.eric@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(RED)determined that disulfoton uses on barley, wheat, and potatoes were ineligible for reregistration and were to be phased out by June 2005. Additionally, the Di-Syston 15G use on ornamentals (commercial use) was to be phased out by June 2005. These phase outs were necessary to mitigate drinking water, occupational, and ecological risks. This notice and subsequent order will finalize these phase-outs. These uses have been removed from their respective end-use product labels and Bayer CropSciences acknowledged their cancellation in letters dated November 16, 2007 and January 24 and February 5, 2008. Bayer CropScience disulfoton products that had been registered for use on barley, wheat, and potatoes included Di-Syston 15G (EPA Reg. No. 264-723), Di-Syston 8 EC (EPA Reg. No. 264-734), and the disulfoton technical product (EPA Reg. No. 264-725). The termination of the subject uses for this Notice will not terminate the last disulfoton end-use products registered in the United States. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant to amend product registrations to terminate certain uses of disulfoton. The affected products and the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit. Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless: 1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or 2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. Bayer CropSciences, the disulfoton technical registrant, has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests. Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued canceling and amending the affected registrations. **Table 1. — Disulfoton Product Registrations with Pending Requests for Amendment** Registration Number Product Name Delete From Label Company 264-723 Di-Syston 15G Broccoli, Potato, Wheat, Barley, Ornamentals (commercial uses) Bayer CropSciences 264-734 Di-Syston 8 EC Potato, Wheat, Barley Bayer CropSciences 264-725 Di-Syston Technical Potato, Wheat, Barley Bayer CropSciences Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit. **Table 2. — Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and/or Amendments** EPA Company Number Company Name and Address 264 Bayer CropSciences, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the **Federal Register** . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request. V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for Reregistration of Disulfoton Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before June 20, 2008. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks In response to this request for termination of certain uses, the Agency proposes to issue an order which would include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products identified or referenced in Table 1. If the request for voluntary termination of certain uses is granted as discussed in unit 3, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that would allow the registrant to sell and distribute such existing stocks for six months from the date of the cancellation order and allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of products with previously approved labeling that includes the discontinued uses, until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the associated products. Generally, orders effecting requested cancellations permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for one year after the date the cancellation request was received. In this case however, the Agency has determined that six months will allow sufficient time for the registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks. The decision to phase out disulfoton usage on wheat, barley, and potatoes by 2005 was announced in the 2002 RED. The technical registrant initially announced their voluntary cancellation of Di-Syston 15G use on broccoli in a letter dated September 30, 2004. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since these events, the Agency has determined it is unnecessary to provide the registrant one year to sell or distribute existing stocks. Consequently, the cancellation order will permit the registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for six months after the date the cancellation order is issued. This policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in the **Federal Register** of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-3846-4). Exceptions to this general rule will also be made if a product poses a risk concern, or is in noncompliance with reregistration requirements, or is subject to a data call-in. In all cases, product-specific disposition dates will be given in the cancellation orders. The Agency intends to publish the final cancellation order in the **Federal Register** . Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a Special Review action, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical . List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: May 13, 2008. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11325 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0075; FRL-8350-7] Notice of Withdrawal of 14 Tolerance Petitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing 14 pesticide petitions because the petitioners either voluntarily withdrew their petitions, or the petitions were administratively withdrawn by EPA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Martin, Registration Division (7505P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-2857; fax number:

(703)305-0599; e-mail address: *martin.kathleen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? Although this action only applies to the registrants in question, it is directed to the public in general. Since various individuals or entities may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0075. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is announcing that 10 petitioners representing 14 petitions, B2E Corporation (7E4907); BASF Corporation (3E4216); Conn and Smith, Inc. (7E4794); Ecolab Inc. (9E5081, 9E5086, 9E6014); Falcon Lab LLC (3E6789); Firmenich Incorporated (6E4759); Hercon Environmental Corporation (7E4918); Huntsman Corporation (8E4992); Keller and Heckman LLP (4E6861, 5E6907, 5E6952); and Synagro Technologies (6E4732), have withdrawn their petitions to amend 40 CFR part 180 to exempt residues of inert ingredients, as provided for under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. 1. *PP 3E4216* (Blankophor BBH). In 2007, the petitioner now BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Part, NC 27709-3528, requested that *PP 3E4216* be withdrawn without prejudice. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of May 16, 1997 (62 FR 27025) (FRL-5717-8), which announced American Cyanamid Company, Agricultural Research Division, P.O. Box 400, Princeton, NJ 08543-0400, submission of a pesticide petition *(PP 3E4216)* . This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 exempting the residues of 2,2'-(1,2-ethenediyl)bis[5-[[4-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-6-phenylamino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-benzenesulfonate from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an inert ingredient (adjuvant and UV absorber/protectant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. 2. *PP 3E6789* (ammonium nonanoate). Falcon Lab LLC, requested that *PP 3E6789* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of March 17, 2004 (69 FR 12670) (FRL-7343-5), which announced Falcon Lab LLC, 1103 Norbee Drive, Wilmington, DE 19803, submission of a pesticide petition *(PP 3E6789)* . This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ammonium nonanoate in or on all raw agricultural commodities. 3. *PP 4E6861* (amphoteric surfactant). In 2007, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, on behalf of Tomah3, requested that *PP 4E6861* be withdrawn without prejudice. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7103) (FRL-7695-9), which announced Tomah3 Products, Inc., 337 Vincent St., P.O. Box 388, Milton, WI 53563-0388, submission of a pesticide petition *(PP 4E6861)* . This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the use of any member of the class of amphoteric surfactant inert ingredients described as [beta-alanine, N-(2-carboxyethyl)-N-[3-polyoxaalkylalkoxy)propyl]-, (mono- or disodium salt) and polyalkoxy, a-[3-[bis(2-carboxyethyl)amino]propyl]-w-alkoxy, (mono- or disodium salt), containing 0 to 20 repeating alkoxy/polylalkoxy units (methoxy-, ethoxy-, propoxy-, butoxy-) and 6 to 21 carbons in an n-alkyloxy-, isoalkyloxy- or branched alkyloxy- chain; also known as alkyl ether amine dicarboxyethyl sodium salts in or on all raw agricultural commodities and food. 4. *PP 5E6907* (aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate). In 2007, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, on behalf of Selective Micro Technologies, LLC, requested that *PP 5E6907* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of April 20, 2005 (70 FR 2054) (FRL-7703-9), which announced Keller and Heckman LLP’s submission of a pesticide petition *(PP 5E6907)* . This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate (CAS No. 85585-93-9) when used in the formulation process for antimicrobial pesticides used on food-contact surfaces and in water that contacts raw agricultural commodities postharvest. 5. *PP 5E6952* (ether amines). In 2007, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, on behalf of Tomah3, requested that *PP 5E6952* be withdrawn without prejudice. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41726) (FRL-7722-2), which announced Tomah3 Products, Inc.’s, 337 Vincent St., P.O. Box 388, Milton, WI 53563-0388, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 5E6952* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the use of any member of the class of alkoxylated surfactant inert ingredients described as 1-propanamine, N,N-polyoxaalkyl-, [3-(X-alky)oxy]polyoxaalkyl (derivs.); polyalkoxy, [alpha], [alpha]'-(imino)bis[[omega]-hydroxy-, N-[3-[(X-alkyl)oxy]polyoxaalkyl]propyl (derivs.); polyalkoxy, [alpha]-[3-N,N-bis(polyoxaalkyl)]amino]propyl]-[omega]-hydroxy-monoalkyl ethers; or polyalkoxy, [alpha]-[3-[bis(hydroxyalkyl)amino]propyl]-[omega]-hydroxy-, ether with [alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxypolyalkoxy (1:2), monoalkyl ethers containing 0 to 20 internal repeating alkoxy units (methoxy-, ethoxy-, propoxy-, or acetoxy-); 1 to 14 terminal repeating alkoxy units (ethoxy-or propoxy-); and 6 to 22 carbons in an n-alkyloxy-, isoalkyloxy- or branched alkyloxy- chain, in or on the all raw agricultural commodities and food. 6. *PP 6E4732* (granulite). In 2007, the petitioner now Synagro Technologies, Inc., 3501 Asiatic Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21226, requested that *PP 6E4732* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of April 29, 1998 (63 FR 23438) (FRL-5783-4), which announced Wheelabrator Water Technologies, Inc.’s, 8201 Eastern Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 6E4732* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for biosolids in or on the raw agricultural commodity granulite. 7. *PP 6E4759* (ethyl methyl phenyl). Firmenich Incorporated has requested that *PP 6E4759* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79834) (FRL-6751-9), which announced Firmenich Incorporated’s, P.O. 5880, Princeton, NJ 08543, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 6E4759* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ethyl methylphenylglycidate when used as an inert ingredient in the pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.1001(e). 8. *PP 7E4794* (pentaerythritol stearates). In 2007, Conn and Smith, Inc., requested on behalf of their client Walker Silicones Corporation, that *PP 7E4794* be withdrawn without prejudice. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66091) (FRL-5760-5), which announced Wacker Silicones Corporation’s, Wacker-Chemie, 3301 Sutton Road, Adrain, MI 49221-9397, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 7E4794* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by revising the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance established under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) for the residues of pentaerythritol stearates (CAS. No. 85116-93-4) from 25 parts per million

(ppm)to 500 ppm. 9. *PP 7E4907* (2-HAP). In 2007, B2E Corporation requested that *PP 7E4907* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of October 8, 1997 (62 FR 52552) (FRL-5745-9), which announced B2E Corporation’s, 16 School St., Rye, NY 10580, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 7E4907* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 2-hydroxyacetophenone (2-HAP) in or on the raw agricultural commodity. 10. *PP 7E4918* (TOTM). In 2007, Hercon Environmental Corporation requested that *PP 7E4918* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13404) (FRL-5776-6), which announced Hercon Environmental Corporation’s, Aberdeen Road, P.O. Box 467, Emigsville, PA 17318-0467, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 7E4918* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for trioctyl trimellitate

(TOTM)as an inert ingredient under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). 11. *PP 8E4992* (butylene carbonate). In 2006, Huntsman Corporation requested that *PP 8E4992* be withdrawn. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of December 30, 1998 (63 FR 71920) (FRL-6050-1), which announced Huntsman Corporation’s, 8600 Gosling Road, The Woodlands, TX 77381, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 8E4992* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for propylene carbonate and butylene carbonate (4-(methyl and ethyl)-(1,3-dioxolan-2-one)) when used in accordance with good agricultural practice as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. 12. *PP 9E5081* (HEDP). In 2004, EPA withdrew *PP 9E5081* without prejudice, for administrative reasons there was a regulatory change. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47791) (FRL-6090-8), which announced Ecolab Inc.’s, 370 N. Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 9E5081* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid

(HEDP)in or on the raw agricultural commodities, in processed commodities, and in or on meat and meat byproducts of cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, and poultry, milk, and dairy products, eggs, seafood and shellfish, and fruit and fruits and vegetables when such residues result from the use of HEDP as a component of a food contact surface sanitizing solution up to 34 ppm for use in food handling establishments. In a July 2004 letter, EPA informed Ecolab that because of a regulatory change (April 28, 2004, 69 FR 23113), HEDP (up to prescribed limits, depending on how HEDP was used) was now covered by an exemption for a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940. 13. *PP 9E5086* (acetic acid). In 2004, EPA withdrew *PP 9E5086* without prejudice, for administrative reasons there was a regulatory change. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47791) (FRL-6090-8), which announced Ecolab Inc.’s, 370 N. Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 9E5086* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for acetic acid in or on the raw agricultural commodities, in processed commodities, and in or on meat and meat byproducts of cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, and poultry, milk, and dairy products, eggs, seafood and shellfish, and fruit and fruits and vegetables when such residues result from the use of acetic acid as a component of a food contact surface sanitizing solution for use in food handling establishments. In a July 2004 letter, EPA informed Ecolab that because of a regulatory change (April 28, 2004, 69 FR 23113), acetic acid (up to prescribed limits, depending on how acetic acid was used) was now covered by an exemption for a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940. 14. *PP 9E6014* (phosphoric acid). In 2004, EPA withdrew *PP 9E6014* without prejudice, for administrative reasons there was a regulatory change. EPA issued a notice in the **Federal Register** of September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47791) (FRL-6090-8), which announced Ecolab Inc.’s, 370 N. Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102, submission of a pesticide petition ( *PP 9E6014* ). This petition requested that EPA amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of phosphoric acid in or on raw agricultural commodities, in processed commodities, and in or on meat and meat byproducts of cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, and poultry, milk, and dairy products, eggs, seafood and shellfish, and fruit and fruits and vegetables when such residues result from the use of phosphoric acid as a component of a food contact surface sanitizing solution for use in food handling establishments. In a July 2004 letter, EPA informed Ecolab that because of a regulatory change (April 28, 2004, 69 FR 23113), phosphoric acid was now covered by an exemption for a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: May 7, 2008. Deborah McCall, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11393 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget May 15, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before June 20, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,

(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B. Herman@fcc.gov,* Federal Communications Commission, or an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to the Web page *http://reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*

(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review”,

(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is requesting emergency OMB review and approval by June 13, 2008. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-XXXX. *Title:* DTV Retailer Site Visit Program. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1,450 respondents; 1,450 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* .25 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. *Total Annual Burden:* 325 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* No sensitive information is requested. There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission will submit this information collection

(IC)to the OMB a new collection in which we request emergency OMB review and approval by June 13, 2008. On February 19, 2008, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket No. 07-148, FCC 08-56, concerning the DTV Consumer Education Initiative. The Report and Order noted that many retailers have agreed to participate in the National Telecommunications and Information Agency

(NTIA)digital-to-analog converter box coupon program. Those retailers claim to have undertaken significant employee training initiatives regarding the converter box program and the digital television transition. Among other things, the Report and Order offered the Commission's assistance to the NTIA to assess those training efforts. In this regard, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau field agents will regularly visit participating retailer stores across the country. They will conduct on-the-spot interviews with retail managers to ascertain whether retailers who participate in the converter box coupon box program are fulfilling their commitment to engage in extensive employee training on the DTV transition and converter box program. The interview will consist of a series of questions to assess employee training and whether the retailer's objectives are being met at stores. The interview will not be part of an official investigation and no penalty would result from the interview. The information collected will be forwarded to FCC Headquarters to be consolidated into an aggregated report that will then be forwarded to NTIA for its review and appropriate action. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11378 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Revision Under Delegated Authority, Comments Requested May 14, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501-3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning:

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 21, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, send them to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C216, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Leslie F. Smith via the Internet at *PRA@fcc.gov* or call

(202)418-0217. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0515. *Title:* Section 43.21(c), Miscellaneous Common Carrier Annual Letter Filing Requirement. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 27 respondents; 27 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Obligation To Respond:* Mandatory (47 CFR 43.21(c)). *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 27 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* $0.00. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impacts. *Nature of Extent of Confidentiality:* The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. *Needs and Uses:* Section 43.21(c) requires each miscellaneous common carrier with operating revenues for a calendar year in excess of the indexed threshold, as defined in 47 CFR Section 32.9000, to file with the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau (formerly the Common Carrier Bureau) a letter showing its operating revenues for that year and the value of its total communications plant at the end of that year. The letter must be filed no later than April 1 of the following year. The information is used by the FCC staff for regulatory or compliance purposes and by the public to analyze the industry. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11390 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget May 13, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* , Federal Communications Commission, or an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* . To view a copy of this information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to the Web page *http://reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*

(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review”,

(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0999. *Title:* Section 20.19, Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets (Hearing Aid-Compatibility Act). *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 925 respondents; 950 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 13.2 hours average burden per response. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion and annual reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement (labeling/posting requirements). *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 12,600 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* Information requested in the reports may include confidential information. However, covered entities would be allowed to request that such materials submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection (see 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules). *Needs and Uses:* The Commission will submit this information collection

(IC)to the OMB as a revision during this comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them. This information collection was pre-approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)when the Commission adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 12/27/07. [Previously approved was a Report and Order adopted in 2003 in which the Commission modified the exemption for telephones used with public mobile services from the requirements of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act). The Order required digital wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to make certain digital wireless phones capable of effective use with hearing aids. As part of that Order, manufacturers and service providers were required to label certain phones they sold with information about their compatibility with hearing aids, and also to report to the Commission (at first every six months, then on an annual basis) on the number and types of hearing aid-compatible phones they were producing or offering to the public.] Now, the Commission has adopted and released a *Report and Order,* FCC 08-68, which updated several of the performance benchmarks for manufacturers and service providers, instituted new requirements for manufacturers to refresh their product lines and for service providers to offer hearing aid-compatible handset models with differing levels of functionality, adopted a new version of the technical standard for measuring hearing aid compliance, and addressed the application of the rules to phones that operate in multiple frequency bands or air interfaces. To assist the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the new requirements and to provide information to the public, the *Report and Order* also requires manufacturers and service providers to continue to file annual reports on the status of their compliance with these requirements, and requires manufacturers and service providers that maintain public Web sites to publish up-to-date information on those Web sites regarding their hearing aid-compatible handset models. The annual reports required in this *Order* contain different and additional information than in previous versions of this information collection (see above). Those requirements, along with the requirement to post certain information on Web sites, are intended to give consumers the information they need to navigate a technically complex and rapidly changing world of hearing aid-compatible wireless phones, and to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with its new regulations. Finally, in order to avoid potential consumer confusion over technical capabilities, the *Order* modified the product labeling requirements slightly. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11399 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget May 12, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before July 21, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,

(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov,* Federal Communications Commission, or an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to the web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*

(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review”,

(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-1094. *Title:* Licensing, Operation, and Transition of the 2495-2690 MHz Band. *Form Nos.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents:* 2,500 respondents; 12,726 responses. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 3.334 hours (average burden per response) and adds .50 hours for the new requirement for wireless service providers (see paragraph one of the supporting statement that will be submitted to OMB after this 60 day comment period). *Frequency of Response:* On occasion and one time reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 8,457 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $266,666. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* In a Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 08-83, adopted on March 20, 2008, the Commission adopted Wireless Communications Association International, Inc's.

(WCA)modified proposal regarding the formula used to calculate height benchmarking and clarifying how non-contiguous licensees calculate their height benchmark. Because licensees are now required under 47 CFR 27.1221(f) to provide the geographic coordinates, the height above ground level of the center of radiation for each transmit and receive antenna, and the date transmissions commenced for each of the base stations in its geographic service area

(GSA)within 30 days of receipt of a request from a co-channel, neighboring Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service (BRS/EBS) licensee(s). The Commission is revising this information collection to add the requirement referenced above from the 4th MO&O and to eliminate the requirement for Multichannel Video Programming Distributors

(MVPD)Opt-Out (Waiver Requests) that sunset on April 30, 2007. That option is no longer available and is being removed from this information collection. The information will be used to notify third parties and to prevent harmful interference to licensees' BRS/EBS operations. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11402 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget, Comments Requested May 15, 2008. SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid OMB control number. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 20, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (e-mail address: *nfraser@omb.eop.gov* ), and to the Federal Communications Commission's PRA mailbox (e-mail address: *PRA@fcc.gov* ). Include in the e-mails the OMB control number of the collection as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below or, if there is no OMB control number, the Title as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. If you are unable to submit your comments by e-mail contact the person listed below to make alternate arrangements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact Leslie F. Smith via e-mail at *PRA@fcc.gov* or at

(202)418-0217. To view or obtain a copy of an information collection request

(ICR)submitted to OMB:

(1)Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* ,

(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,”

(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,

(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,

(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and

(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of the ICR you want to view (or its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0823. *Title:* Part 64, Pay Telephone Reclassification. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 400 respondents; 16,820 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2.66 hours (average). *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory, as required by 47 U.S.C. Section 276. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion and monthly reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 44,700 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $620,000.00. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit Confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission's Common Carrier Bureau adopted and released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 *et al.* , CC Docket No. 96-128, DA 98-481, on March 9, 1998, which clarified the requirements established in the *Payphones Orders* for the provision of payphone-specific coding digits and for tariffs that local exchange carriers

(LECs)must file pursuant to the *Payphone Orders* . The Commission also granted a waiver of Part 69 of the Commission's rules so that LECs can establish rate elements to recover the costs of implementing FLEX-ANI (a type of switch software) to provide payphone specific coding digits for per-call compensation. The Commission is required to implement section 276 of the Act, which it has done in the Payphone Orders. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11404 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.fmc.gov* ) or contacting the Office of Agreements (202)-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011960-002. *Title:* The New World Alliance Agreement. *Parties:* American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. Pte, Ltd.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; and Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.(”MOL”). *Filing Party:* Robert B. Yoshitomi, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; Gas Company Tower; 555 West Fifth Street 46th Floor; Los Angeles, CA 90013. *Synopsis:* The amendment would authorize MOL to subchapter space to the Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement in trades between the Far East and the U.S. West and East Coasts. *Agreement No.:* 012043. *Title:* MOL / APL / HMM Japan / USWC Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. Pte. Ltd.; and Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. *Filing Party:* Robert B. Yoshitomi, Esq.; Nixon Peabody, LLP; Gas Company Tower; 555 West Fifth St., 46th Floor; Los Angeles, CA 90013. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes the parties to exchange slots in the trade between U.S. West Coast and Japan. *Agreement No.:* 201181. *Title:* Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston Authority (“PHA”) and Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corporation. *Parties:* Port of Houston Authority and Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corporation. *Filing Party:* Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East Loop North; Houston, TX 77029. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes PHA to establish discounted rates and charges for Evergreen's container vessels calling at the port. *Agreement No.:* 201182. *Title:* Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston Authority (“PHA”) and OOCL

(USA)Inc. *Parties:* Port of Houston Authority and OOCL

(USA)Inc. *Filing Party:* Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East Loop North; Houston, TX 77029. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes PHA to establish discounted rates and charges for OOCL's container vessels calling at the port. *Agreement No.:* 201183. *Title:* Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston Authority (“PHA”) and Hamburg Sud. *Parties:* Port of Houston Authority and Hamburg Sud. *Filing Party:* Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East Loop North; Houston, TX 77029. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes PHA to establish discounted rates and charges for Hamburg Sud's container vessels calling at the port. *Agreement No.:* 201184. *Title:* Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston Authority (“PHA”) and Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. *Parties:* Port of Houston Authority and Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. *Filing Party:* Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East Loop North; Houston, TX 77029. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes PHA to establish discounted rates and charges for Mediterranean Shipping's container vessels calling at the port. *Agreement No.:* 201185. *Title:* Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston Authority (“PHA”) and Zim American Integrated Shipping Services Co., Inc. *Parties:* Port of Houston Authority and Zim American Integrated Shipping Services Co., Inc. *Filing Party:* Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of Houston Authority; 111 East Loop North; Houston, TX 77029. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes PHA to establish discounted rates and charges for Zim's container vessels calling at the port. Dated: May 16, 2008. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11392 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants World Export & Logistics, Inc., 8600 NW 64th Street, Miami, FL 33168. Officers: Roberto Acevedo, Secretary, (Qualifying Individual) Celia Leon, President. LCL Logistic LLC, 18411 Crenshaw Blvd., Torrance, CA 90504. Officers: Van T. Phung, Secretary, (Qualifying Individual), Christopher T. Le, President. Aramex International Courier, Ltd. dba Aramex, 147-29 182nd Street, Jamaica, NY 11413. Officers: Pedro Freire, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant Richard Murray & Company, Inc. dba Plainsman Shipping Co., 109 N. Conception Street, Suite 100, Mobile, AL 36602. Officer: Edward F. Murray, Jr., President (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant Planet Freight Services, Inc., 1744 NW 82nd Avenue, Doral, FL 33126, Officer: Marco A. Oliveira, President (Qualifying Individual), Dated: May 16, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11389 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Solicitation for Nominations for Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. ACTION: Solicits nominations for new members. SUMMARY: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

(AHRQ)invites nominations of individuals qualified to serve as members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The USPSTF, a standing, independent panel of outside experts that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding the provision of clinical preventive services, is composed of members appointed to serve for four year terms with an option for reappointment. New members are selected each year to replace approximately one fourth of the USPSTF members, i.e., those who are completing their appointments. Individuals nominated but not appointed in previous years, as well as those newly nominated, are considered in the annual selection process. USPSTF members meet three times a year for two days in the Washington, DC area. Between meetings, member duties include reviewing and preparing comments (off site) on systematic evidence reviews prior to discussing and making recommendations on preventive services, drafting final recommendation documents, and participating in workgroups on specific topics or methods. AHRQ particularly encourages nominations of women, members of minority populations, and persons with disabilities. Interested individuals can self nominate. Organizations and individuals may nominate one or more persons qualified for membership on the USPSTF. *Qualification Requirements:* The mission of the USPSTF is to produce evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate screening, counseling, and provision of preventive medication for asymptomatic patients seen in the primary care setting. Therefore, in order to qualify for the USPSTF, an applicant or nominee must demonstrate the following: 1. Knowledge and experience in the critical evaluation of research published in peer reviewed literature and in the methods of evidence review; 2. Understanding and experience in the application of synthesized evidence to clinical decision-making and/or policy; 3. Expertise in disease prevention and health promotion; 4. Ability to work collaboratively with peers; and, 5. Clinical expertise in the primary health care of children and/or adults, and/or expertise in counseling and behavioral interventions for primary care patients. Some USPSTF members without primary health care clinical experience may be selected based on their expertise in methodological issues such as medical decision making, clinical epidemiology, behavioral medicine, and health economics. Consideration will be given to individuals who are recognized nationally for scientific leadership within their field of expertise. Applicants must have no substantial conflicts of interest that would impair the scientific integrity of the work of the USPSTF including financial, intellectual, or other conflicts. DATES: All nominations submitted in writing or electronically, and received by Friday, June 20, 2008, will be considered for appointment to the USPSTF. Nominated individuals will be selected for the USPSTF on the basis of their qualifications (in particular, those that address the required qualifications, outlined above) and the current expertise needs of the USPSTF. It is anticipated that three individuals will be invited to serve on the USPSTF beginning in January, 2009. All individuals will be considered; however, strongest consideration will be given to individuals with expertise in family medicine, behavioral medicine, and obstetrics/gynecology. AHRQ will retain and consider for future vacancies the nominations of those not selected during this cycle. ADDRESSES: Submit your responses either in writing or electronically to: Gloria Washington, ATTN: USPSTF Nominations, Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850, *Gloria.Washington@ahrq.hhs.gov.* Nomination Submissions Nominations may be submitted in writing or electronically, but must include

(1)the applicant's current curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number and

(2)a letter explaining how this individual meets the qualification requirements and how he/she would contribute to the USPSTF. The letter should also attest to the nominee's willingness to serve as a member of the USPSTF. AHRQ will later ask persons under serious consideration for membership to provide detailed information that will permit evaluation of possible significant conflicts of interest. Such information will concern matters such as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts. Nomination Selection Nominations for the USPSTF will be selected on the basis of qualifications as outlined above (see Qualification Requirements) and the current expertise needs of the USPSTF. Arrangement for Public Inspection Nominations and applications are kept on file at the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships, AHRQ, and are available for review during business hours. AHRQ does not reply to individual responses, but considers all nominations in selecting members. Information regarded as private and personal, such as a nominee's social security number, home and e-mail addresses, home telephone and fax numbers, or names of family members will not be disclosed to the public. This is in accord with AHRQ confidentiality policies and Department of Health and Human Services regulations (45 CFR 5.67). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria Washington at *Gloria.washington@ahrq.hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under Title IX of the Public Health Service Act, AHRQ is charged with enhancing the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services and access to such services. 42 U.S.C. 299(b). AHRQ accomplishes these goals through scientific research and promotion of improvements in clinical practice, including prevention of diseases and other health conditions, and improvements in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services. See 42 U.S.C. 299(b). The USPSTF is a panel of outside experts that makes independent evidence-based recommendations regarding the provision of clinical preventive services. The USPSTF was first established in 1984 under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service. Currently, the USPSTF is convened by the Director of AHRQ, and AHRQ provides ongoing administrative, research and technical support for the USPSTF's operation. The USPSTF is charged with rigorously evaluating the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of clinical preventive services and formulating or updating recommendations for primary care clinicians regarding the appropriate provision of preventive services. See 42 U.S.C. 299b4(a)(1). Current USPSTF recommendations and associated evidence reviews are available on the Internet ( *http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov* ). Dated: May 8, 2008. Carolyn M. Clancy, Director. [FR Doc. E8-11191 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Public Health Informatics In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)announces the following committee meetings: *Name:* Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Public Health Informatics. *Times and Dates:* 10 a.m.-5 p.m., June 5, 2008. 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., June 6, 2008. *Place:* Auditorium A, Global Communications Center, Building 19, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333. *Status:* Open to the public, limited only by the space available. Please Note: Due to current security measures, a valid government issued identification card with photo is required for admittance into the Roybal facility. Non-U.S. citizens wishing to attend should contact: Thomas G. Savel, M.D., telephone,

(404)498-2475. The deadline for notification of attendance is May 22, 2008. *Purpose:* The board provides advice to the Secretary, HHS, and the Director, CDC, on strategies and goals for the programs and research within the national center; conducts peer-review of scientific programs; and monitors the overall strategic direction and focus of the national center. The board also performs second-level peer review of applications for grants-in-aid for research and research training activities, cooperative agreements, and research contract proposals relating to the broad areas within the national center. *Matters to be Discussed:* The agenda will include an overview of the National Center for Public Health Informatics (NCPHI), including its mission, scope and goals. Participants will give detailed presentations of select intramural and extramural NCPHI activities. NCPHI intramural activity topics include biosurveillance, electronic laboratory reporting, and health information exchanges; extramural NCPHI activities include those involving its five Centers of Excellence in Public Health Informatics. Discussions focusing on future NCPHI program activities are also planned. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. *Contact Person for More Information:* Thomas G. Savel, M.D., Designated Federal Official, National Center for Public Health Informatics, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mail Stop E-78, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Telephone,

(404)498-2475. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: May 9, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-11328 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [OMB No.: 0970-0288] Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request *Proposed Projects:* Title: Evaluation of the Improving Child Welfare Outcome through Systems of Care Grant Program. *Description:* The 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act

(SSA)authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to review State child and family service programs to ensure conformance with the requirements in titles IV-B and IV-E of SSA. Under the Final Rule, which took effect March 25, 2000, States are assessed for substantial conformity with certain Federal requirements for child-welfare services. The Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR), administered by the Children's Bureau, are designed to ensure conformity with Federal child-welfare requirements and, ultimately, to help States improve child-welfare services and outcomes, specifically safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for child-welfare-involved children and their families. States determined not to have achieved substantial conformity in any of the areas assessed are required to develop and implement Program Improvement Plans

(PIP)addressing the areas of nonconformity. The Systems of Care grant cluster, from which these data are proposed to be collected, is designed to encourage public child-welfare agencies to address the issues identified in their State's CFSR. The data collected from these demonstration sites will allow the Children's Bureau to test whether this approach can help States reach the goals stated in their PIP and explore how child welfare can benefit from being part of a system of care. Data will be collected via interviews, forms completed by project staff, surveys, focus groups and case-file reviews. Data also will be collected to determine the extent to which the Technical Assistance

(TA)provided, brokered or contracted by the TA and Evaluation Center is meeting the needs of the grantees, and how. *Respondents:* Systems of Care Project Directors (members of the Systems of Care collaborative may include representatives from mental health, juvenile justice, education, health, among others); child-welfare agency supervisors and caseworkers; partner agency caseworkers; and families who have been involved with the child-welfare system. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Stakeholder Survey 270 1 .5 135 Child-Welfare Agency Survey 600 1 1 600 Supervisor Interviews 90 1 1 90 Stakeholder Interviews 90 1 1 90 Project Director Interviews 23 1 1 23 Case Study Interviews 25 1 1.5 37.5 Focus Group with Family Members 102 1 1.5 153 Parent Partner Interviews 24 1 1 24 Child-Welfare Agency and Partner Agency Focus Groups 280 1 1.5 420 Community Description Form 9 1 2.5 22.5 Organizational Structure Form for Case Study Sites 3 1 2 6 Organizational Structure Form for Non-Case Study Sites 20 1 1 20 Collaborative Membership Form 23 1 1.5 34.5 Major Activities Form 23 1 1.5 34.5 Training and Technical Assistance Quality Assurance Assessment 23 1 1 23 Training and Technical Assistance Conference Call Feedback Forms 10 12 .25 30 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,743. In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, *Attn:* ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on:

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

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

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

(1)Report Child Support Enforcement activities to the Congress as required by law;

(2)calculate incentive measures performance and performance indicators utilized in the program; and

(3)assist the Office of Child Support Enforcement in monitoring and evaluating State Child Support programs. *Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours OCSE-157 54 1 7 378.0 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 378.0 *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 378.0 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: May 14, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11190 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0263] Draft Guidance for Industry: Requalification Method for Reentry of Blood Donors Deferred Because of Reactive Test Results for Antibody to Hepatitis B Core Antigen (Anti-HBc); Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Requalification Method for Reentry of Blood Donors Deferred Because of Reactive Test Results for Antibody to Hepatitis B Core Antigen (Anti-HBc)” dated May 2008. The draft guidance document provides recommendations to establishments that collect human blood or blood components for a requalification method or process to reenter deferred donors into a donor pool based on a determination that the previous tests that were repeatedly reactive for anti-HBc were falsely positive and that there is no evidence of infection with Hepatitis B virus (HBV). DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by August 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Levine, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Requalification Method for Reentry of Blood Donors Deferred Because of Reactive Test Results for Antibody to Hepatitis B Core Antigen (Anti-HBc)” dated May 2008. FDA is providing recommendations to establishments that collect human blood or blood components for a requalification method or process for the reentry of deferred donors into the donor pool based on a determination that previous tests that were repeatedly reactive for anti-HBc were falsely positive and that there is no evidence of infection with HBV. Due to the availability of this licensed HBV nucleic acid test and the improved specificity of anti-HBc assays, we are recommending a reentry algorithm for donors deferred due to a falsely positive repeatedly reactive test for anti-HBc in this guidance. Until now FDA has not recommended a requalification method or process for reentry of donors deferred due to reactive test results for hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) due to the lack of licensed tests that could be recommended for use in a suitable algorithm for this purpose. The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the draft guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: May 12, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-11433 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-F-0290] Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing that Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of cassia gum as a stabilizer in frozen dairy desserts, and to improve texture and water retention in cheeses, meat products, and poultry products. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy, College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1272. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 8A4772) has been filed by Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., c/o Keller & Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in part 172, Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption (21 CFR part 172) to provide for the safe use of cassia gum as a stabilizer in frozen dairy desserts, and to improve texture and water retention in cheeses, meat products, and poultry products. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Dated: May 13, 2008. Laura M. Tarantino, Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. E8-11279 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Request for Public Comment: 60-Day Proposed Information Collection: Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires 60 days for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service

(IHS)is publishing for comment a summary of a proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review. *Proposed Collection: Title:* 0917-0014, “Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program.” *Type of Information Collection Request:* Extension, without revision, of currently approved information collection, 0917-0014, “Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program.” *Form(s):* The IHS Loan Repayment Program Information Booklet contains the instructions and the application formats. *Need and Use of Information Collection:* The IHS Loan Repayment Program

(LRP)identifies health professionals with pre-existing financial obligations for education expenses that meet program criteria and who are qualified and willing to serve at, often remote, IHS health care facilities. Under the program, eligible health professionals sign a contract under which the IHS agrees to repay part or all of their indebtedness for professional training time in IHS health care facilities. This program is necessary to augment the critically low health professional staff at IHS health care facilities. Any health professional wishing to have their health education loans repaid may apply to the IHS Loan Repayment Program. A two-year contract obligation is signed by both parties, and the individual agrees to work at an IHS location and provide health services to Native American and Alaska Native individuals. The information collected from individuals is analyzed and a score is given to each applicant. This score will determine which applicants will be awarded each fiscal year. The administrative scoring system assigns a score to the geographic location according to vacancy rates for that fiscal year and also considers whether the location is in an isolated area. When an applicant takes employment at a location, they in turn “pick-up” the score of that location. *Affected Public:* Individuals and households. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals. *The table below provides:* Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hour(s). Estimated Burden Hours Data collection instrument Estimated number of respondents Responses per respondent Average burden hour per response Total annual burden hours Section I 510 1 18/60 153.0 Section II 510 1 30/60 255.0 Section III 510 4 15/60 128.0 Contract 510 1 20/60 170.0 Affidavit 510 1 10/60 85.0 Lender's Certification 2,000 15/60 500.0 Total 4,650 1,282.0 There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report. *Request for Comments:* Your written comments and/or suggestions are invited on one or more of the following points:

(a)Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;

(b)whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;

(c)the accuracy of public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);

(d)whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;

(e)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(f)ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Send Comments and Requests for Further Information:* Send your written comments, requests for more information on the proposed collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument(s) and instructions to: Ms. Chria Rouleau, IHS Reports Clearance Officer, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 450, Rockville, MD 20852-1627; call non-toll free

(301)443-5938; send via facsimile to

(301)594-0899; or send your e-mail requests, comments, and return address to: *Christina.Rouleau@ihs.gov.* *Comment Due Date:* Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication. Dated: May 13, 2008. Robert G. McSwain, Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E8-11184 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing. ADDRESSES: Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications. Synthetic Analogs of Juxtamembrane Domain of IGF-1 Receptor as Anti-Cancer Agents *Description of Technology:* Insulin-like growth factor receptor type one (IGF-1R), part of the receptor tyrosine kinase

(RTKs)family, is integral to cancer cell growth and metastasis. Juxtamembrane domains

(JM)of RTKs are located in the cytoplasm between the transmembrane and kinase domains. JMs play a crucial role in the inhibition of the regulation of receptor activity. Studies on other small molecules tyrosine kinase inhibitors

(TKIs)indicate non-specific binding with the insulin receptor which has high homology with IGF-1R. The current invention describes synthetic analogs of IGF-1R JM which were found to be potent inhibitors of IGF-1-mediated cell signaling and cancer cell growth. These analogs provide more binding specificity with less likelihood of significant toxic effects. *Applications and Modality:* New inhibitors can be used to treat many types of tumors. IGR-1R inhibition may be useful as an anti-aging agent. IGR-1R plays an inhibitory role in regulation of skin development and differentiation. IGF-1R inhibitors may have revitalizing and rejuvenating effect on skin and may stimulate wound healing. *Market:* An estimated 1,444,920 new cancer diagnoses in the U.S. in 2007. 600,000 deaths caused by cancer in the U.S. in 2006. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. Cancer drug market will likely double to $50 billion in 2010 from $25 billion in 2006. *Development Status:* The technology is currently in the preclinical stage of development. *Inventors:* Nadya I. Tarasova and Sergey G. Tarasov (NCI). *Patent Status:* U.S. Provisional Application No. 61,040,203 filed 28 Mar 2008 (HHS Reference No. E-129-2008/0-US-01). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive and non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Adaku Nwachukwu, J.D.; 301-435-5560; *madua@mail.nih.gov* . Protein-Tyrosine Phosphotase Inhibitors as Inhibitors of Human Tyrosyl-DNA Phosphodiesterase

(Tdp1)and Methods of Treating Disorders *Description of Technology:* Tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase

(Tdp1)is an enzyme that repairs topoisomerase I (Top1)-mediated DNA damage induced by chemotherapeutic agents (such as camptothecins) and ubiquitous DNA lesions that interfere with transcription and replication. Tdp1 is a relevant target for anticancer therapies due to its role in repairing Top1-mediated DNA damage and DNA damage associated with DNA strand breaks. Tdp1 inhibitors are expected to be effective in cancer treatment when used in combination with Top1 inhibitors. The current invention is Me-3,4 dephostatin, and more generally protein-tyrosine phosphatase inhibitors, which is a Tdp1 inhibitor. Me-3,4 dephostatin could potentiate the pharmacological action of Top1 inhibitors. *Applications and Modality:* It is anticipated that Tdp1 inhibitors in association with Top1 inhibitors can have selective activity toward tumor tissues. Tdp1 inhibitors may exhibit antitumor activity by themselves because tumors have excess free radicals. *Market:* An estimated 1,444,920 new cancer diagnoses in the U.S. in 2007. 600,000 deaths caused by cancer in the U.S. in 2006. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. Cancer drug market will likely double to $50 billion in 2010 from $25 billion in 2006. *Development Status:* The technology is currently in the pre-clinical stage of development. *Inventors:* Yves Pommier

(NCI)*et al.* *Relevant Publication:* S Antony *et al.* Novel high-throughput electrochemiluminescent assay for identification of human tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase

(Tdp1)inhibitors and characterization for furamidine (NSC 305831) as an inhibitor of Tdp1. Nucleic Acid Res. 2007;35(13):4474-4484. *Patent Status:* U.S. Provisional Application No. 61,040,203 filed 28 Mar 2008 (HHS Ref. No. E-121-2008/0-US-01). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive and non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Adaku Nwachukwu, J.D.; 301-435-5560; *madua@mail.nih.gov* . Method of Inhibiting ABCG2 and Related Treatments *Description of Technology:* The technology is directed to a method of inhibiting ABCG2, which is a multidrug resistance

(MDR)protein. It is believed that ABCG2 plays a role in the development of resistance of cancer cells to chemotherapeutics. Therefore, inhibition of ABCG2 would allow chemotherapeutics to be more effective in killing cancer cells, thereby treating cancer. Five compounds were identified in the provisional application that inhibit ABCG2. These compounds are known in the literature and are part of the NCI Developmental Therapeutics Program (DTP). *Applications:* Cancer therapeutics; Research tools to study function of ABCG2 proteins. *Advantages:* Valuable tools to further developing understanding or normal and cancer cells; Augment efficacy of drugs that are ABCG2 substrates. *Development Status:* Early stage. *Market:* Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, after heart disease. Multiple drug resistance is a significant impediment in the treatment of cancers resulting in a poor prognosis. The market for effective cancer treatments is very large. *Inventors:* Curtis J. Henrich (SAIC/NCI), Heidi R. Bokesch (SAIC/NCI), Susan E. Bates (NCI), Robert W. Robey (NCI), Suneet Shukla (NCI), Suresh V. Ambudkar (NCI), Michael C. Dean (NCI), and James B. McMahon (NCI). *Patent Status:* U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/986,155 filed 07 Nov 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-316-2007/0-US-01). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* John Stansberry, Ph.D.; 301-435-5236; *stansbej@mail.nih.gov* . *Collaborative Research Opportunity:* The National Cancer Institute Molecular Targets Development Program is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize Method of Inhibiting ABCG2 and Related Treatments. Please contact John D. Hewes, Ph.D. at 301-435-3121 or *hewesj@mail.nih.gov* for more information. Method of Inducing Memory B Cell Development and Terminal Differentiation *Description of Technology:* Cytokines exert their respective biochemical and physiological effects by binding to specific receptor molecules, which then stimulate signal transduction pathways. Interleukin-21 (IL-21) is a type I cytokine whose receptor is expressed on T, B, and NK cells. This invention specifically relates to the use of IL-21 to induce differentiation of immature B cells into memory B cells and plasma cells. This invention includes claims of methods for inducing differentiation of a B cell progenitor into memory B cells and/or plasma cells. It also includes claims for enhancing an immune response, treating subjects that lack memory B cells and plasma cells and methods for increasing or decreasing the number of B cells. This invention could conceivably be used in treating or preventing inflammatory disorders, autoimmune diseases, allergies, transplant rejection, cancer, and other immune system disorders. *Inventors:* Peter E. Lipsky (NIAMS) *et al.* *Patent Status:* U.S. Patent Application No. 11/197,221 filed 03 Aug 2005, allowed (HHS Reference No. E-120-2003/2-US-01). *Licensing Contact:* Jennifer Wong; 301-435-4633; *wongje@mail.nih.gov* . The Use of an Inducible Plasmid Vector Encoding for Active TGF-β for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases *Description of Technology:* This application describes a composition and method for treating inflammatory bowel disease or other autoimmune diseases. The composition utilizes a vector which contains a first promoter which controls the expression of a regulatory transcription factor and a second inducible promoter which controls the expression of the gene of interest. The preferred gene of interest encodes an isoform of TGF-β such as TGF-β 1 or TGF-β 3 . The isoform of TGF-β does not have to be hTGF-β and can be a latent or active isoform of TGF-β. The preferred inducible promoter is TRE-CMV which can be induced using doxycycline. The usefulness of the composition for treating autoimmune diseases is demonstrated in the application in a murine model of inflammatory bowel disease in which intestinal inflammation was abrogated by the administration of a plasmid vector encoding active TGF-β. The composition may be administered by a variety of delivery systems and intranasal delivery is exemplified. *Inventors:* Warren Strober *et al.* (NIAID). *Patent Status:* U.S. Patent Application No. 10/258,109 filed 30 Jun 2003 (HHS Reference No. E-096-2000/0-US-03). *Licensing Contact:* Jennifer Wong; 301-435-4633; *wongje@mail.nih.gov* . Inhibition of Cell Motility, Angiogenesis and Metastasis *Description of Technology:* The present invention relates to potent, highly selective antagonists of Grb2 Src homology-2

(SH2)domain binding. Grb2, through its SH2 domain, mediates growth factor driven cell motility *in vitro* and angiogenesis *in vivo* . These synthetic, small molecule antagonists have been shown to block cell motility stimulated by hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and vascular endothelial cell growth factor (VEGF). They also potently inhibit HGF- and VEGF-stimulated morphogenesis and angiogenesis, respectively, in several model systems. HGF stimulates mitogenesis, motogenesis and morphogenesis in a wide range of cellular targets during development and adulthood, and its signaling pathway is frequently over-activated in human cancers, including colon, gastric, breast, lung, thyroid and renal carcinomas, melanoma, several sarcomas as well as glioblastoma. The ability of HGF to initiate a program of cell dissociation and increased cell motility coupled with increased protease production promotes aggressive cellular invasion and is frequently linked to tumor metastasis. Metastasis, the primary cause of death in most forms of cancer, is a multistep process whereby cells from the primary tumor spread systemically and colonize distant new sites. Blocking critical steps in this process could potentially inhibit tumor metastasis and dramatically improve cancer survival rates. The small, synthetic Grb2 SH2 domain antagonists described in this invention have been shown to inhibit the induced and spontaneous metastasis of melanoma- and prostate cancer-derived tumor cells in mice. These results establish a critical role for Grb2 SH2 domain-mediated interactions in the metastatic process and support the potential efficacy of this class of compound in reducing the metastatic spread of primary solid tumors in humans. *Applications and Modality:* Inhibition of cell motility-dependent processes, including angiogenesis and metastasis, in several types of cancer such as prostate, colon, gastric, breast, lung, thyroid and renal carcinomas, melanoma and various sarcomas. *Market:* An estimated 1,444,920 new cancer cases were diagnosed in the U.S. in 2007. 600,000 deaths caused by cancer in the U.S. in 2006. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. The cancer drug market will likely double to $50 billion in 2010 from $25 billion in 2006. *Development Status: In vivo* and *in vitro* studies have been conducted on this technology. *Inventors:* Donald P. Bottaro *et al.* (NCI); *Relevant Publications:* 1. Atabey N, Breckenridge D, Yao Z-J, Gao Y, Soon L, Soriano JV, Burke TR, Bottaro DP. Potent blockade of Hepatocyte Growth Factor-stimulated cell motility, invasion, and tubulogenesis by antagonists of Grb2-c-Met interaction. J Biol Chem. 2001 Apr 27;276(17):14308-14314. 2. Shi Z-D, Wei C-Q, Wang X, Lee K, Liu H, Zhang M, Vasselli J, Bottaro DP, Linehan WM, Yang D, Burke TR Jr. Macrocyclization in the design of tetra-tetrapeptide mimetics that display potent inhibition of Grb2 SH2 domain binding in whole cell systems. In: Peptide Revolution: Genomics, Proteomics Therapeutics. Chorev, M and Sawyer, TK, Eds. American Peptide Society, pp 515-517, 2003. 3. Soriano JV, Lui N, Gao Y, Yao Z-J, Ishibashi T, Underhill C, Burke TR Jr, Bottaro DP. Grb2 SH2 domain binding antagonists inhibit angiogenesis *in vitro* and *in vivo* . Mol Cancer Ther. 2004 Oct;3(10):1289-1299. 4. Shi Z-D, Karki RG, Worthy KM, Bindu LK, Dharmawardana PG, Nicklaus MC, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, Burke TR Jr. Utilization of a nitrobenzoxadiazole

(NBD)fluorophore in the design of a Grb2 SH2 domain binding peptide mimetic. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2005 Mar 1;15(5):1385-1388. 5. Kang S-U, Shi, Z-D, Karki RG, Worthy KM, Bindu LK, Dharmawardana PG, Choyke SJ, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, Burke TR Jr. Examination of phosphoryl-mimicking functionalities within a macrocyclic Grb2 SH2 domain-binding platform. J Med Chem. 2005 Jun 16;48(12):3945-3948. 6. Shi Z-D, Peruzzi B, Dharmawardana PG, Leech T, Appella E, Worthy KM, Bindu LK, Fisher RJ, Bottaro DP, Burke TR Jr. Synthesis and use of C-terminally biotinylated peptidomimetics with high Grb2 SH2 domain-binding affinity. In: Understanding Biology Using Peptides, Blondelle SE (Ed), American Peptide Society, pp 208-209, 2005. 7. Dharmawardana PG, Peruzzi B, Giubellino A, Bottaro DP. Molecular targeting of Grb-2 as an anti-cancer strategy. Anti-Cancer Drugs 2006 Jan;17(1):13-20. 8. Liu F, Worthy KM, Bindu L, Giubellino A, Bottaro DP, Fisher RJ, Burke TR Jr. Utilization of achiral alkenyl amines for the preparation of high affinity Grb2 SH2 domain-binding macrocycles by ring-closing metathesis. Org Biomol Chem. 2007 Jan 21;5(2):367-372. 9. Giubellino A, Gao Y, Lee S, Lee M-J, Vasselli JR, Medepalli S, Trepel JB, Burke TR Jr, Bottaro DP. Inhibition of tumor metastasis by a Grb-2 SH2 domain binding antagonist. Cancer Res. (Priority Report) 2007 Jul 1;67(13):6012-6016. *Patent Status:* PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/078494 filed 14 Nov 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-265-1999/2-PCT-02). *Licensing Status:* Available for exclusive and non-exclusive licensing. *Licensing Contact:* Adaku Nwachukwu, J.D.; 301-435-5560; *madua@mail.nih.gov* . *Collaborative Research Opportunity:* The Urologic Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize Grb2 SH2 domain antagonsists as anti-cancer drugs. Please contact John D. Hewes, Ph.D. at 301-435-3121 or *hewesj@mail.nih.gov* for more information. Dated: May 15, 2008. Steven M. Ferguson, Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. E8-11317 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis; Panel Bacterial Pathogenesis. *Date:* May 30, 2008. *Time:* 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Marian Wachtel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3208, MSC 7858, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1148, *wachtelm@csr.nih.gov.* This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group: Molecular Genetics A Study Section. *Date:* June 5-6, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Michael M. Sveda, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1114, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3565, *svedam@csr.nih.gov.* This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group: Genetics of Health and Disease Study Section. *Date:* June 9-10, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Holiday Inn Fisherman's Wharf, 1300 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133. *Contact Person:* Cheryl M. Corsaro, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1045, *corsaroc@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Integrated Review Group: Virology—A Study Section. *Date:* June 12, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Carlyle Suites Hotel, 1731 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. *Contact Person:* Joanna M. Pyper, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3198, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1151, *pyperj@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Fellowships. *Date:* June 12-13, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. *Contact Person:* John Bishop, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5180, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1250, *bishopj@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Member Conflicts: Psychopathology and Health Psychology. *Date:* June 12, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Estina E. Thompson, MPH, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3178, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5749, *thompsone@mail.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Bacterial Pathogenesis. *Date:* June 17, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. *Contact Person:* Marian R. Wachtel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3208, MSC 7858, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1148, *wachtelm@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Eukaryotic Pathogens. *Date:* June 19, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Soheyla Saadi PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3211, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0903, *saadisoh@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Developmental Disabilities, Communication and Science Education. *Date:* June 23, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Dana Jeffrey Plude, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3176, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2309, *pluded@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Drug Therapy. *Date:* June 25, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Manzoor Zarger PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6208, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-2477, *zargerma@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Electromagnetic Devices. *Date:* June 25, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* Antonio Sastre, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5215, MSC 7412, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2592, *sastrea@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: F07 Immunology Fellowships and AREA. *Date:* June 26, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. *Contact Person:* Paek-Gyu Lee, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4201, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1277, *leepg@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Member Conflict: Influences on Behavior, Thought Processes, and Mental Health. *Date:* June 26, 2008. *Time:* 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Karen Lechter, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3128, MSC 7759, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0726, *lechterk@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel: Small Business: Psychopathology and Adult Disorders. *Date:* June 27, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. *Contact Person:* Estina E. Thompson, MPH, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3178, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5749, *thompsone@mail.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: May 13, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-11187 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Vascular Disease Program Project. *Date:* June 9, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. *Contact Person:* Shelley S. Sehnert, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7206, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0303, *ssehnert@nhlbi.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: May 13, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-11186 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Public Process for the Expansion of the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry and Availability for Public Comment of Preliminary Information Related to the Establishment of a Basic Results Database SUMMARY: Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA; Pub. L. 110-85) mandates the expansion of the existing ClinicalTrials.gov registry and the establishment of a clinical trial results database. This notice announces our intent to implement the expanded registry and the basic results database via rulemaking and to post for public comment on the website identified below preliminary materials related to the basic results database. Comments received on the preliminary basic results materials will be considered in the development of an operational version of the basic results database and in the drafting of the associated regulation and any necessary guidance documents. The regulation will be subject to a separate public comment process. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted using an electronic form available on the public Web site *http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html.* They may also be submitted by e-mail to the address: *register@prs.clinicaltrials.gov.* E-mail entries should include the words “Comment on FDAAA Basic Results” in the subject line. DATES: Basic results materials will be made available for comment as they become available. New and revised materials will be posted on the NIH Web site *http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html* several times between May 2008 and September 30, 2008. Specific comment periods will be identified for each item as they are posted. Comments must be received on or before the posted deadlines in order to ensure their consideration in the development of the operational version of the basic results database and in preparation of the planned regulation and any necessary guidance documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tony Tse, Ph.D., National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, MSC 3828, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-402-0650 (not toll-free). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 mandates expansion of the existing *ClinicalTrials.gov* registry to include additional information about Applicable Clinical Trials of drugs, biologics, and devices (as defined in the law). It also mandates establishment of a clinical trial results database and requires, beginning not later than 12 months after enactment (i.e., by September 27, 2008), the inclusion of the basic results information described in the law. Additional statutory provisions outline processes for adding information about serious and frequent adverse events observed in a trial and for further expanding the registry and results database. We plan to provide clarification of the requirements for the expanded clinical trial registry and the basic results database via rulemaking. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)for the expanded registry is expected to be published for public comment in Fall 2008. A separate NPRM for the basic results database will be issued for public comment at a later date. Prior to the issuance of the NPRM for the basic results database, NIH will post for comment on the public Web site *http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html* preliminary versions of the data entry and display formats for the results database, as well as related descriptive information. Comment periods will be specified each time an item is posted. Public comments received on these preliminary materials will be considered by the agency and will inform development of an operational basic results database and preparation of the NPRM for basic results information that will be published for public comment at a later date. NIH intends to begin posting new materials in May 2008; additional or revised materials will be posted several times before September 30, 2008. Interested members of the public may elect to receive electronic notification when new draft materials are posted and available for comment. Instructions for subscribing to these alerts will be posted on the public Web site. Dated: May 8, 2008. Lana R. Skirboll, Director, Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health (NIH). [FR Doc. E8-11042 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2007-0180] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget: OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0001, 1625-0013, and 1625-0096 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding three Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA)of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)requesting an extension of their approval for the following collections of information:

(1)1625-0001, Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel;

(2)1625-0013, Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines, and

(3)1625-0096, Report of Oil or Hazardous Substance Discharge; and Report of Suspicious Maritime Activity. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties. DATES: Please submit comments on or before June 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2007-0180] to the Docket Management Facility

(DMF)at the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT)or to OIRA. To avoid duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following means:

(1)*Electronic submission.*

(a)To Coast Guard docket at *http://www.regulation.gov* .

(b)To OIRA by e-mail to: *nlesser@omb.eop.gov* .

(2)*Mail or hand delivery.*

(a)DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(b)To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

(3)*Fax.*

(a)To DMF, 202-493-2251.

(b)To OIRA at 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax to the attention of Mr. Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer for the Coast Guard. The DMF maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Copies of the complete ICRs are available through this docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Additionally, copies are available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The telephone number is 202-475-3523. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3523 or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing:

(1)The practical utility of the collections;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the collections; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR addressed. Comments to Coast Guard must contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2007-0180]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is best if they are received on or before June 20, 2008. *Public participation and request for comments:* We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* . They will include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act Policy” below. *Submitting comments:* If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2007-0180], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit them 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 the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them. The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. *Viewing comments and documents:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* to view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2007-0180] in the Search box, E464 and click, “Go>>.” You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in 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 Privacy Act Statement of DOT in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or by visiting *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Previous Request for Comments This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (73 FR 201, January 2, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Information Collection Request 1. *Title:* Marine Casualty Information & Periodic Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0001. *Type of Request:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Vessel owners and operators. *Abstract:* 46 U.S.C. 6101, as delegated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to the Commandant, authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations for the reporting of marine casualties involving death, serious injury, material loss of property, material damage affecting the seaworthiness of a vessel, or significant harm to the environment. It also requires information on the use of alcohol be included in a marine casualty report. 46 U.S.C. 7503 authorizes the Coast Guard to deny the issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents (seamen's papers) to users of dangerous drugs. Similarly, 46 U.S.C. 7704 requires the Coast Guard to revoke such papers when a holder of the same has been shown to be a drug user, unless the holder provides satisfactory proof stating the holder is cured. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has decreased from 18,876 hours to 15,753 hours a year. 2. *Title:* Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0013. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Owners and operators of vessels. *Abstract:* 46 U.S.C. 5101 to 5116 provides the Coast Guard with the authority to enforce provisions of the International Load Line Convention, 1966. Subchapter E of 46 CFR chapter I, contains the relevant load line regulations. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has increased from 1,681 hours to 1,699 hours a year. 3. *Title:* Report of Oil or Hazardous Substance Discharge; and Report of Suspicious Maritime Activity. *OMB Control Number:* 1625-0096. *Type of Request:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Persons-in-charge of a vessel or onshore/offshore facility, owners or operators of vessels, or facilities required to have security plans; and the public. *Abstract:* 33 CFR 153.203, 40 CFR 263.30/264.56, and 49 CFR 171.15 mandate the National Response Center

(NRC)to be the central place for the public to report all pollution spills. 33 of CFR 101.305 mandates owners/operators of vessels or facilities to have security plans and report activities or breaches that may result in a Transportation Security Incident

(TSI)to the NRC. Voluntary reports are also accepted. *Burden Estimate:* The estimated burden has increased from 9,105 hours to 13,017 hours a year. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: May 2, 2008. D.T. Glenn, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E8-11361 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-290B, Extension of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the Office of Administrative Appeals; OMB Control No. 1615-0095. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until July 21, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0095 in the subject box. During this 60-day period USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form I-290B. Should USCIS decide to revise the Form I-290B it will advise the public when it publishes the 30-day notice in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The public will then have 30-days to comment on any revisions to the Form I-290B. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of an existing information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Notice of Appeal to the Office of Administrative Appeals

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* I-290B, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals or Households. The information collection required on the Form I-290B is necessary in order for USCIS to make a determination that the appeal or motion to reopen or reconsider meet eligibility requirements, and for the Administrative Appeals Office to adjudicate the merits of the appeal or motion to reopen or reconsider.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 30,000 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 15,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: May 16, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-11385 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-360, Extension of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow, or Special Immigrant. OMB Control Number 1615-0020. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until July 21, 2008. Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please add the OMB Control Number 1615-0020 in the subject box. During this 60-day period USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form I-360. Should USCIS decide to revise the Form I-360 it will advise the public when it publishes the 30-day notice in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The public will then have 30-days to comment on any revisions to the Form I-360. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of an existing information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Petition for Amerasian, Widow or Special Immigrant.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-360. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as brief abstract:* *Primary:* Individuals or households. This information collection is used by several prospective classes of aliens who intend to establish their eligibility to immigrate to the United States.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 13,684 responses at 2 hours per response and 5,000 responses at 3 hours per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 42,368 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377. Dated: May 16, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-11387 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5188-N-07] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; Annual Progress Reports for Empowerment Zones AGENCY: Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* July 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department or Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410; telephone: 202-708-2374, (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail Ms. Deitzer at *Lillian.L.Deitzer@HUD.gov* for a copy of the proposed form and other available information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Mize, Office of Community Renewal, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)402-4167 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of proposal:* Annual Progress Reports for Empowerment Zones. *OMB Control Number:* 2506-0148. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* This is an information collection for reporting requirements of 30 Urban Empowerment Zones (EZs). HUD will regularly evaluate the progress of implementation of the strategic plan in each designated Empowerment Zone (Rounds I, II and III) as required by HUD's regulations (24 CFR 597.400 and 24 CFR 598.415). The information submitted will enable HUD to assess performance of designees and the effectiveness of the Empowerment Zone Initiative. *Agency form numbers, if applicable:* *Members of Affected Public:* State or local governments. *Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:* Paperwork requirement Number of respondents Frequency of response Annual responses Hours per response Burden hours Annual Reports: Round I EZs 7 2 7 10 70 Round II EZs 15 15 15 10 150 Round III EZs 8 2 8 10 80 Response to a Letter of warning 0 2 4 8 Total 30 30 308 *Frequency of Submission:* Periodically and Annually. *Status of the proposed information collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: May 12, 2008. Nelson R. Bregón, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. E8-11319 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5188-N-06] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request, HUD-Administered Small Cities Program Performance Assessment Report AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date: July 21, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Pam Williams, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 7234, Washington, DC 20410. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eva Fontheim at

(202)402-3461 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* HUD-Administered Small Cities Program Performance Assessment Report. *OMB Control Number, if applicable:* 2506-0020. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* The information collected from grant recipients participating in the HUD-administered CDBG program provides HUD with financial and physical development status of each activity funded. These reports are used to determine grant recipient performance. *Agency form numbers, if applicable:* The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, requires grant recipients that receive CDBG funding to submit a Performance Assessment Report (PAR), Form 4052, on an annual basis to report on program progress; and such records as may be necessary to facilitate review and audit by HUD of the grantee's administration of CDBG funds(Section 104 (e)(1)). *Members of affected public:* This information collection applies solely to local governments in New York State that have HUD-administered CDBG grants that remain open or continue to generate program income. *Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:* The estimated number of respondents is 65. The proposed frequency of the response to the collection of information is annual. Annual recordkeeping is estimated at 260 hours for approximately 65 grant recipients. *Status of the proposed information collection:* Revision of a currently approved collection, and a request for OMB renewal for three years. The current OMB approval will expire in July 2008. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: May 13, 2008. Nelson R. Brego n, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. E8-11323 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5191-N-04] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Loss Mitigation Programs AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date: July 21, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail *Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone

(202)402-8048. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vance T. Morris, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone

(202)708-1672 x2419 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing Involving the Loss Mitigation Programs. *OMB Control Number, if applicable:* 2502-NEW. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate-income borrowers and neighborhoods. Providing assistance, as needed, to enable families to cure their delinquencies and retain their homes stabilizes neighborhoods that might otherwise suffer from deterioration and problems associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Avoidance of foreclosure and the resultant costs also serve to further stabilize the mortgage insurance premiums charged by FHA and the Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums. The information collection request for OMB review seeks to combine the requirements of several existing OMB collections under one collection; they are as follows OMB collections 2502-0301, 0464 and 0523. *Agency form numbers, if applicable:* HUD-1 Settlement Statement, HUD-27011 Single Family Application for Insurance Benefits, HUD-90035 Information/Disclosure, HUD-90041 Request for Variance, Pre-foreclosure sale procedure, HUD-90045 Approval to Participate, HUD-90051 Sale Contract Review, HUD-90052 Closing Worksheet, HUD-92068 F Request for Financial Information, HUD-PA-426 How to Avoid Foreclosure. *Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:* The number of burden hours is 777,494, the number of respondents is 83,110, the number of responses is 508,883, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the burden hour per response is from 15 minutes to 4 hours depending upon the activity. *Status of the proposed information collection:* This is a new collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. Date: May 16, 2008. Frank L. Davis, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E8-11413 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5191-N-18] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing of Delinquent, Default, and Foreclosure With Service Members Act AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(202)402-2419 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* FHA-Insured Mortgage Loan Servicing of Delinquent, Default, and Foreclosure with Service Members Act. *OMB Control Number, if applicable:* 2502-XXX. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use:* FHA insurance is an important source of mortgage credit for low and moderate-income borrowers and their neighborhoods. It is essential that FHA maintain a healthy mortgage insurance fund through premiums charged the borrower by FHA along with Federal budget receipts generated from those premiums to support HUD's goals. Providing policy and guidance to the single family housing mortgage industry regarding changes in FHA's program is essential to protect the fund. The OMB information requests referred to below provide HUD's policy and guidance. This information collection request for OMB review seeks to combine the requirements of two existing OMB collections under this collection. The OMB collections are as follows; OMB collections 2502-0060 “Single Family Delinquent Loan Reporting” and 2502-0565 “Service-member Civil Relief”. *Agency form numbers, if applicable:* HUD-PA 426, Avoiding Foreclosure Pamphlet, HUD-9539, Request for Occupied Conveyance, HUD-27011, Single Family Application for Insurance Benefits, HUD-50012, Mortgagees Request for Extension of Time Requirements, HUD-92070, Service-members Civil Relief Act Notice Disclosure. *Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:* The number of burden hours is 5,456,245, the number of respondents is 223, the number of responses is 69,178,200, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the burden hour per response is from 15 minutes to 4 hours depending upon the activity. *Status of the proposed information collection:* This is new collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: May 16, 2008. Frank L. Davis, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. E8-11414 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-FHC-2008-N0124]; [94300-1122-0000-Z2] Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee; Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), will host a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee) workshop, on June 18, 2008. The workshop is open to the public. The workshop agenda will include the discussion and clarification of objectives to guide the Committee in its development of recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. DATES: The meeting will take place on June 18, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: USFWS Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Colorado 80228. For more information, see “Meeting Location Information” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,

(703)358-2161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 13, 2007, the Department of the Interior (Interior) published a notice of establishment of the Committee and call for nominations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11373). The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities. The Committee is expected to exist for 2 years. Its continuation is subject to biennial renewal. The Committee will meet approximately four times per year. All Committee members serve without compensation. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), a copy of the Committee's charter has been filed with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration; Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives; and the Library of Congress. The Secretary appointed 22 individuals to the Committee on October 24, 2007, representing the varied interests associated with wind energy development and its potential impacts to wildlife species and their habitats. The USFWS has held Committee meetings in February and April 2008. All Committee meetings are open to the public. The public will have an opportunity to comment at all Committee meetings. Meeting Location Information Please note that the USFWS Mountain-Prairie Regional Office is accessible to wheelchair users. If you require additional accommodations, please notify us by June 11, 2008. If you plan on attending the meeting, please register at *http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html* by June 11, 2008. While this meeting is open to the public, seating is limited due to room capacity. We will give preference to registrants based on date and time of registration. There will be standing room available if seats are filled. Dated: May 8, 2008. David J. Stout, Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Designated Federal Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11347 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [F 14856-A, F-14856-A2; AK-965-1410-KC-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Emmonak Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of Emmonak, Alaska, and are located in: Seward Meridian, Alaska T. 31 N., R. 79 W., Secs. 7, 17, 18, and 19; Secs. 20, 29, and 30; Sec. 31, lots 1 and 2; Sec. 32, lots 1, 2, and 5; Sec. 33. Containing 5,672.68. T. 31 N., R. 80 W., Secs. 1 and 2; Sec. 3, lots 1, 2, 3, and 5; Secs. 4 and 5; Sec. 6, lot 1; Sec. 7, lots 1, 5, and 6; Secs. 8 and 9; Sec. 10, lots 1 and 2; Secs. 11 to 15, inclusive; Sec. 16, lots 1 to 6, inclusive; Secs. 17 to 20, inclusive; Sec. 21, lots 1 and 3; Secs. 22 to 30, inclusive; Sec. 31, lots 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; Secs. 32 to 36, inclusive; Containing 20,147.35 acres. T. 33 N., R. 80 W., Sec. 19, lots 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9; Secs. 28 to 33, inclusive. Containing 4,259.97 acres. T. 32 N., R. 81 W., Sec. 1, to 4, inclusive; Sec. 5, lots 1, 2, and 3; Sec. 6. Containing 3,656.38 acres. T. 33 N., R. 81 W., Secs. 23 to 27, inclusive; Secs. 33 and 34; Sec. 35, lot 1; Sec. 36. Containing 5,303.91 acres. T. 32 N., R. 82 W., Secs. 1 and 2. Containing 1,280 acres. Aggregating 40,320.29 acres. The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Calista Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Emmonak Corporation. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Tundra Drums. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until June 20, 2008, to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.* Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Robert Childers, Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II. [FR Doc. E8-11341 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-100-08-1310-NB] Call for Nominations for the Pinedale Anticline Working Group AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Call for nominations for membership to the Pinedale Anticline Working Group

(PAWG)as part of the Adaptive Management program for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area in Southwestern Wyoming. DATES: All nominations should be postmarked by 30 days from date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Final appointments will be made by the Secretary of the Interior. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Caleb Hiner, Pinedale Anticline Working Group and Task Groups Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. SUMMARY: On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior renewed the Charter for the PAWG and Task Groups. Representatives of

(1)Sublette County,

(2)the Town of Pinedale,

(3)the oil and gas operators,

(4)the environmental community,

(5)the livestock operators, and

(6)the adjacent landowner are being solicited. Individuals or groups interested in becoming a member of the PAWG should submit the specified information within 30 days of this Notice. Nomination forms may be found at *http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Pinedale/pawg.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caleb Hiner, Pinedale Anticline Working Group and Task Groups Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941, telephone

(307)367-5352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior renewed the Charter for the Pinedale Anticline Working Group and Task Groups (PAWG). Nine members representing interest groups, governmental agencies, and local interests are appointed to the PAWG to serve a 2-year term. Nominations are being taken to represent:

(1)Sublette County,

(2)the Town of Pinedale,

(3)the oil and gas operators,

(4)the environmental community,

(5)the livestock operators and

(6)the adjacent landowner. Additional information can be found at: *http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Pinedale/pawg.html* . The Charter established several membership selection criteria and operational procedures that were developed once the Working Group became active. These are listed as follows: 1. The PAWG is composed of nine members who reside in the State of Wyoming. The PAWG members will be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Interior. 2. Members to be selected to serve on the PAWG are as follows:

(1)Sublette County,

(2)The Town of Pinedale,

(3)The oil and gas operators,

(4)The environmental community,

(5)The livestock operators and

(6)The adjacent landowner. 3. All members should have demonstrated an ability to analyze and interpret data and information, evaluate proposals, identify problems, and promote the use of collaborative management techniques (such as, long term planning, management across jurisdictional boundaries, data sharing, information exchange, and partnerships), and a knowledge of issues involving oil and gas development activities. 4. The service of the PAWG members shall be as follows: a. PAWG members will be appointed to 2-year terms, subject to removal by the Secretary of the Interior. At the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, members may be reappointed to additional terms. b. The Chairperson of the PAWG will be selected by the PAWG. c. The term of the Chairperson will not exceed 2 years. Individuals, or representatives of groups, who wish to become members of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group should complete and submit the following information to the Pinedale Field Office within 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** : 1. Representative Group to be considered for: 2. Nominee's Full Name: 3. Business Address: 4. Business Phone: 5. Home Address: 6. Home Phone: 7. Occupation/Title: 8. Qualifications (education including colleges, degrees, major field of study and/or training): 9. Career Highlights (significant related experience, civic and professional activities, elected offices, prior advisory committee experience, or career achievements related to the interest to be represented): 10. Experience in collaborative management techniques, such as long term planning, management across jurisdictional boundaries, data sharing, information exchange and partnerships: 11. Experience in data analysis and interpretation, problem identification and evaluation of proposals: 12. Knowledge of issues involving oil and gas development: 13. Indicate Specific Area of Interest to be Represented from the following:

(1)Sublette County,

(2)The Town of Pinedale,

(3)The oil and gas operators,

(4)The environmental community,

(5)The livestock operators, and

(6)The adjacent landowner 14. List any leases, licenses, permits, contracts or claims that you hold which involve lands or resources administered by the BLM: 15. Attach two or three Letters of Reference from interests or organization to be represented: 16. Nominated by: Include Nominator's name, address and telephone number(s) 17. Date of nomination: Groups should nominate more than one person and indicate their preferred order of appointment selection. James K. Murkin, Acting Associate State Director. [FR Doc. E8-11423 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CA-169-1220-PG] Notice of Public Meeting, Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee SUMMARY: In accordance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2), the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee will meet as indicated below: DATES: The meeting will be held on Saturday, June 28, 2008, at the Carrisa Plain Elementary School, located approximately 2 miles northwest of Soda Lake Road on Highway 58. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and finish at 2 p.m. The meeting will discuss the resource management plan being developed and prior recommendations made by the Committee. There will be a public comment period from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Lunch will be available for $8. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The nine-member Carrizo Plain National Monument Advisory Committee advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues associated with the public land management in the Carrizo Plain National Monument in Central California. At this meeting, Monument staff will present updated information of the progress on the draft Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). This meeting is open to the public. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, and the time available, the time allotted for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact BLM as indicated below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Johna Hurl, Monument Manager, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308. Phone at

(661)391-6093 or e-mail *jhurl@blm.gov.* Dated: May 15, 2008. John Skibinski, Assistant Office Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield Field Office. [FR Doc. E8-11340 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR). SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the National Environmental Policy Act Federal lead agency. The Tehama Colusa Canal Authority

(TCCA)is the California Environmental Quality Act State lead agency. Together, these agencies have prepared a Final EIS/EIR for the Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project (Project). The Project provides for improved fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam as called for by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act section 3406 (b)(10), while also providing for continued agricultural water deliveries to TCCA member districts. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published in the **Federal Register** on September 6, 2002 (Volume 67, No. 173). The written comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR ended December 6, 2002. On January 30, 2007, Reclamation published a second Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS/EIR in the **Federal Register** (Volume 72, No. 19), which began an additional comment period lasting through March 16, 2007. The Final EIS/EIR contains responses to all comments received and changes made to the text of the Draft EIS/EIR as a result of those comments and any additional information received during the review period. DATES: Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after release of the Final EIS/EIR. After the 30-day period, Reclamation will complete a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the action that will be implemented and will discuss all factors leading to the decision. ADDRESSES: A compact disk of the Final EIS/EIR may be requested from Mr. Don Reck, by writing to the Bureau of Reclamation, 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, CA 96019-8400; by calling 530-275-1554; or by e-mailing *dreck@mp.usbr.gov.* The Final EIS/EIR is also accessible from the following Web site: *http://www.mp.usbr.gov.* See the Supplementary Information section for locations where copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available for public review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Don Reck, Bureau of Reclamation, at 530-275-1554 or *dreck@mp.usbr.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since construction of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, concern has been expressed regarding the dam's effect on both upstream and downstream fish migration. The dam was built with 11 movable gates. Raising the gates eliminates the dam's effect and allows the river to flow unimpeded. Lowering the dam gates allows for gravity diversion of water into canals and results in the creation of Lake Red Bluff. Over the years, the dam gates have been raised for increasingly longer periods in an attempt to enhance fish passage. Therefore, the ability to divert irrigation water has been gradually decreased from year-round to the current 4-month (gates-in) operations from May 15 to September 14. During the remainder of the year, the dam gates are open, allowing a free flowing, unimpeded river. Detailed studies show the current design of the fish ladders and the operations of the dam gates do not adequately allow passage of all threatened and endangered fish species. The Draft EIS/EIR evaluated the proposed project alternatives that could improve fish passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam, while also providing for continued diversion of water for irrigation. The Draft EIS/EIR documented the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the physical, natural, and socioeconomic environment that may result from implementation of one of the alternatives. Copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available for public review at the following locations: • Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825. • Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, Colorado 80225. • Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001. Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: May 9, 2008. Donald R. Glaser, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. 1 [FR Doc. E8-11349 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-648] In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 18, 2008, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of LSI Corporation of Milpitas, California and Agere Systems Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor integrated circuits using tungsten metallization and products containing same that infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2571. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2008). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on May 14, 2008, ordered that—

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor integrated circuits using tungsten metallization or products containing same that infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,227,335, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainants are— LSI Corporation,1621 Barber Lane, Milpitas, California 95035 Agere Systems, Inc., 1110 American Parkway, NE, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18109

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: United Microelectronics Corporation, No 3 Li-Hsin 2nd Road, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu-Chu City, Taiwan. Integrated Device Technology, Inc., 6024 Silver Creek Valley Road, San Jose, California 95138 AMIC Technology Corporation, No. 2 Li-Hsin 6th Road, Science-Based Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. 198 Champion Court, San Jose, California 95134 Elpida Memory, Inc., Sumitomo Seimei Yaesu Building, 3rd Floor 2-1 Yaesu 2-chome Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0028, Japan Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 6501 William Cannon Drive West, Austin, Texas 78735. Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, 1399 Zu Chong Zhi Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Shanghai 201203, China Microchip Technology, Inc., 2355 West Chandler Boulevard, Chandler, Arizona 85224 Micronas Semiconductor Holding, AG, Technopark Technoparkstrasse 1, Zurich, 8005, Switzerland National Semiconductor Corporation, 2900 Semiconductor Drive, Santa Clara, California 95052-8090 Nanya Technology Corporation, HWA Ya Technology Park, 669 Fu Hsing 3rd Road, Kueishan, Taoyuan County, Taiwan NXP B.V., High Tech Campus 60, Eindhoven, 5656, Netherlands ON Semiconductor Corporation, 5005 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Powerchip Semiconductor Corporation, No 12 Li-Hsin Road, 1 Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan ProMOS Technologies, Inc.,19 Li-Hsin Road Hsinchu Science-Based, Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan Spansion, Inc., 915 DeGuigne Drive, P.O. Box 3453, Sunnyvale, California 94088-3453 STMicroelectronics NV, 39 Chemin du Champ des Filles Plan-Les-Quates C P 21, Geneva, 1228, Switzerland Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation, Headquarter, Fab 1, 123 Park Avenue-3rd, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan 30077

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Carl C. Charneski is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. The Commission notes that the patent at issue was the subject of earlier litigation which raises the issue of whether the complainants are precluded from asserting that patent. In instituting this investigation, the Commission has not made any determination as to whether the complainants are so precluded. Accordingly, the presiding administrative law judge may wish to consider this issue at an early date. Any such decision should be issued in the form of an initial determination (ID). The ID will become the Commission's final determination 45 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any petitions for review of the ID must be filed within ten

(10)days after service thereof. Any review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44 and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: May 15, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-11308 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as Amended Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on May 6, 2008, a proposed consent decree in *United States* v. *Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Inc.* , Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-00081-WOB, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. This Consent Decree will resolve claims asserted by the United States against Carmeuse for civil penalties based on violations of its PSD/operating permit (“the Permit”) and the PSD provisions of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) at Carmeuse's Black River plant (“the Plant”) located in Butler, Pendleton County, Kentucky. The complaint alleges that Carmeuse violated the Permit by not implementing best available control technology (“BACT”) for two lime kilns at the Plant. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these claims by requiring Carmeuse to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 to the United States. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* v. *Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Inc.* , D.J. Ref. #90-5-2-1-08832. The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 260 West Vine Street, Suite 300, Lexington, KY 40507-1671, and at U.S. EPA Region 4, Office of Regional Counsel, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303. During the public comment period, the consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $3.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-11290 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on May 13, 2008, a Consent Decree in *United States of America* v. *the District of Columbia* , Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00825-RBW, was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The consent decree resolves the claims of the United States under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for reimbursement of its past response costs incurred in connection with EPA's response to releases of mercury at two high schools in the District of Columbia. The first release of mercury occurred in and around Ballou High School in 2003 and second release of mercury occurred in and around Cardozo High School in 2005. The consent decree obligates the District of Columbia to reimburse $600,000 of the United States' past response costs. In addition, the District of Columbia commits to verify that it is properly storing, removing and disposing of mercury and other hazardous substances in the District of Columbia public schools. Its verification will include conducting an audit of a representative number of schools. If the District discovers hazardous substances in the schools which are present or maintained in a manner inconsistent with its policies and procedures, the District commits to remove and dispose of such chemicals properly, or to store and inventory them properly. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, Attention: Nancy Flickinger (EES), and should refer to *United States of America* v. *the District of Columbia* , Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00825-RBW, DOJ # 90-11-3-09036. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Judiciary Center Building, 555 Fourth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. During the public comment period, the consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $22.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost for a full copy) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Robert D. Brook, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-11309 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,703] Thyssenkrupp Budd, EmploymentGiant LLC, Detroit, MI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 28, 2007, applicable to workers of Thyssenkrupp Budd, Detroit, Michigan. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11904). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of automotive exterior body stampings and assemblies. New information shows that Thyssenkrupp Budd contracted to have the workers' payroll managed through EmploymentGiant LLC, located in Warren, Michigan. Therefore, some of the workers separated from employment at the subject firm have had their wages reported under the Unemployment Insurance

(UI)account for EmploymentGiant LLC. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include the workers of Thyssenkrupp Budd whose wages were reported as EmploymentGiant LLC. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,703 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Thyssenkrupp Budd, EmploymentGiant LLC, Detroit, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 13, 2005 through February 28, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May, 2008. Ricard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-11368 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,086] K-Industries, USA, LCC; Including Workers Whose Wages Were Paid By Ultimate Staffing Service Riviera Beach, FL; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on April 9, 2008, applicable to workers of K-Industries, USA, LLC, Riviera Beach, Florida. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21991). At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of injection-molded plastic parts. New information provided to the Department shows that before January 2008, some workers of the subject firm were formerly from Ultimate Staffing Service, employed on-site, and sufficiently under control of K Industries USA to be considered leased workers. These workers had their wages reported under the Unemployment Insurance

(UI)tax account for Ultimate Staffing Service. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of K-Industries, USA, LLC who were adversely affected by a shift in production to the Dominican Republic. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,086 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of K-Industries, USA, LLC, including workers who's wages were paid by Ultimate Staffing Service, Riviera Beach, Florida, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 27, 2007, through April 9, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2008. Richard Church Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-11373 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221

(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221

(a)of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 2, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than June 2, 2008. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of May 2008 Erin FitzGerald, Acting Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 5/5/08 and 5/9/08] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 63301 Quebecor World Northeast Graphics, Inc. (State) North Haven, CT 05/05/08 05/02/08 63302 BCS Cuyahoga

(Wkrs)Solon, OH 05/05/08 05/02/08 63303 HCC Machining—Hermetic Seal (State) El Monte, CA 05/05/08 04/15/08 63304 Kaspar and ESH, Inc.

(Wkrs)Long Island City, NY 05/05/08 04/30/08 63305 Dana Holding Corporation

(USW)Glasgow, KY 05/05/08 04/24/08 63306 Eastern Display (division of Art Guild, Inc.)

(Comp)Providence, RI 05/05/08 05/02/08 63307 Condor Products Co., Inc.

(Comp)Owosso, MI 05/05/08 04/30/08 63308 Sumitomo Bakelite North America (NA), Inc. (State) Manchester, CT 05/05/08 05/02/08 63309 Tache Jewelry

(Wkrs)Long Island City, NY 05/05/08 05/02/08 63310 Rockwell Automation (State) Eden Praire, MN 05/05/08 05/02/08 63311 McKechnie Vehicle Components

(Comp)Newberry, SC 05/05/08 05/02/08 63312 Solon Manufacturing Company—Rhinelander

(Rep)Rhinelander, WI 05/06/08 04/29/08 63313 Simclar (North America), Inc.

(Rep)Winterville, NC 05/06/08 05/05/08 63314 MJ Wood Products, Inc.

(Comp)Morrisville, VT 05/06/08 05/05/08 63315 Performance Fibers Operations, Inc.

(Comp)Salisbury, NC 05/06/08 04/25/08 63316 Maxim Integrated Products

(Comp)Sunnyvale, CA 05/06/08 05/05/08 63317 Union Carbide Corporation a Subsid. of The Dow Chemical Co.

(Wkrs)South Charleston, WV 05/06/08 05/05/08 63318 Raytor Compounds (State) Florence, MA 05/06/08 05/02/08 63319 Hood Industries (State) Coushatta, LA 05/06/08 04/18/08 63320 Wyeth Company (State) Andover, MA 05/06/08 05/05/08 63321 Valley Mills, Inc. (State) Valley Head, AL 05/06/08 05/05/08 63322 ARP Manufacturing, LLC

(Comp)North Smithfield, RI 05/07/08 05/05/08 63323 J-Sport Company

(Comp)Millersburg, OH 05/07/08 05/05/08 63324 Americall Group, Inc.

(Wkrs)Hobart, IN 05/07/08 04/25/08 63325 Schott North America, Inc.

(Comp)Auburn, NY 05/07/08 05/02/08 63326 Dellway Sports, Inc.

(Wkrs)New York, NY 05/07/08 04/17/08 63327 Logistics Services, Inc.

(Comp)Fenton, MO 05/07/08 05/06/08 63328 ITT Leopold (IUPAT) Zelienople, PA 05/07/08 05/05/08 63329 Maple Leaf Farms, Inc.

(UFCW)Franksville, WI 05/07/08 05/05/08 63330 Spectrum Yarns, Inc.

(Comp)Marion, NC 05/07/08 05/06/08 63331 Burlington Finishing Plant

(Comp)Burlington, NC 05/07/08 05/05/08 63332 Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

(Comp)Brookfield, WI 05/07/08 05/06/08 63333 LDI Composites

(Wkrs)Green Bay, WI 05/07/08 05/01/08 63334 Stearns/Coleman (State) Sauk Rapids, MN 05/07/08 05/06/08 63335 Baumann Springs USA, Inc.

(Comp)Pineville, NC 05/07/08 04/18/08 63336 CHR Hansen

(Wkrs)Mahwah, NJ 05/07/08 05/06/08 63337 Adapt Identification (State) Marlboro, NJ 05/08/08 05/07/08 63338 Crane Plumbing

(Wkrs)Dallas, TX 05/08/08 04/23/08 63339 Contact Systems, Inc.

(Comp)Danbury, CT 05/08/08 05/07/08 63340 S. Shamash and Sons (State) Secaucus, NJ 05/08/08 05/07/08 63341 Baja Marine Corporation (Div. of Brunswick Corp)

(Comp)Bucyrus, OH 05/08/08 05/07/08 63342 Viking and Worthington Steel Enterprise, LLC

(USW)Valley City, OH 05/08/08 05/07/08 63343 Taylor King

(Wkrs)Taylorsville, NC 05/08/08 05/07/08 63344 General Motors Truck Plant

(Wkrs)Dayton, OH 05/08/08 05/07/08 63345 Hix Corporation

(Wkrs)Pittsburg, KS 05/08/08 05/02/08 63346 Tower Automotive (State) Kendallville, IN 05/09/08 04/25/08 63347 R.L. Stowe Mills, Inc.

(Comp)Chattanooga, TN 05/09/08 05/08/08 63348 BASF Chemical Corporation of Aberdeen

(Wkrs)Aberdeen, MS 05/09/08 05/08/08 63349 Capel Incorporated

(Comp)Troy, NC 05/09/08 05/08/08 63350 Solon Manufacturing Company—Skowhegan

(Rep)Skowhegan, ME 05/09/08 04/29/08 63351 Ina Bearing (Schaeffler Group)

(Wkrs)Spartanburg, SC 05/09/08 05/08/08 63352 Carolina Furniture Manufacturers, Inc.

(Comp)Ramseur, NC 05/09/08 05/06/08 63353 Western Union Financial Services, Inc.

(CWA)Dallas, TX 05/09/08 05/07/08 63354 JBL Professional

(Comp)Northridge, CA 05/09/08 04/06/08 63355 E and L Garment Company

(Wkrs)San Francisco, CA 05/09/08 05/08/08 63356 TRG Customer Solutions

(Wkrs)Greensburg, PA 05/09/08 05/08/08 63357 Hanes Converting Company/Hanes Industries

(Wkrs)Conover, NC 05/09/08 05/07/08 63358 Rika Denshi America, Inc.

(Comp)Attleboro, MA 05/09/08 05/08/08 63359 Mania Technologie Production Systems, Inc. (State) South Windsor, CT 05/09/08 05/08/08 63360 Motorola, Inc./Mobile Devices

(Wkrs)Fort Worth, TX 05/09/08 05/05/08 63361 H & R 1871, LLC

(Comp)Gardner, MA 05/09/08 05/07/08 [FR Doc. E8-11366 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,154] Advantage Printing, Inc.; Hickory, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 8, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Advantage Printing, Inc., Hickory, North Carolina. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-11376 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,366] Tetra Pak, Minneapolis, MN; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 12, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers of Tetra Pak, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-11365 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation

(NSF)has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The full submission may be found at: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.* This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 59116, and no substantial comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. Comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of 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 should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725-17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail to *splimpto@nsf.gov.* Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs persons who are to potentially respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title of Collection:* Descriptive and Exploratory Study of the National Science Foundation's Small Grants for Exploratory Research Funding Mechanism. *OMB Number:* 3145-NEW. *Abstract:* The SGER funding mechanism was developed in 1989 by an external committee, and authorized by NSF Director Bloch for use beginning at the start of Fiscal Year 1990. The committee's charge was to recommend whether NSF as a whole should adopt a mechanism similar to one that had been piloted by the Engineering Directorate, known as Small Grants for Expedited Research. While that title emphasized award timeliness, the mechanism's purposes included funding innovative research ideas. The current formulation of SGER remains conceptually and administratively similar to its original purposes and practices. Over time, NSF has broadened award parameters (award ceiling and duration) and sharpened definitions of purposes (e.g., inserting the term Transformative Research). In at least one case the SGER mechanism was modified for a specific program purpose (the Nanoscale Exploratory Grants, which were externally reviewed). All applicants will be asked about topics relating to the application process (how they found out about SGER, why this mechanism and not a standard proposal, etc.). Awardees will also be asked about activities resulting from their awards, such as follow-on proposals, involvement of graduate students, and testing of new instrumentation. Declinees will be asked, for example, what action they took concerning the declined proposal (wrote standard proposal to NSF or another agency, and whether that was awarded). All applicants will be asked about the guidelines and funding and mechanism, and how they can be improved, e.g., through changes in their design components, expected outcomes, proposal review criteria, etc. The survey data collection will be done on the World Wide Web. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. *Respondents:* Government grant holders—Individuals. *Estimated Number of Responses per Form:* 3,778 for the awardee questionnaire and 580 for the non-awardee questionnaire for a total of 4,358. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* Aggregate total of 1,430 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Once. Dated: May 16, 2008. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. E8-11363 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304] Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating License for Zion Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 and Conforming Amendment and Opportunity for a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of application for approval of a license transfer and conforming amendment and opportunity for a hearing and to provide written comments. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by June 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John B. Hickman, Project Manager, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-3017; Fax number:

(301)415-5370; e-mail: *jbh@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering the issuance of an Order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the direct transfer of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48 for Zion Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2

(Zion)currently held by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), as owner and licensed operator of Zion. The transfer would be to ZionSolutions, LLC (ZS), a wholly owned subsidiary of EnergySolutions (ES). The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. Such amendment would replace references to Exelon in the license with references to ZS and remove references to a prior license transfer from ComEd to Exelon. The application now being considered is dated January 25, 2008, and was filed by Exelon, ZS, and ES. According to the application, ZS would acquire ownership of the facility following approval of the proposed license transfer, and ZS would possess, use and maintain the permanently shut down and defueled Zion Station. Exelon would retain title to the real estate upon which Zion is sited, ownership of the spent nuclear fuel and Class C radioactive waste, and other improvements specified in the Asset Sale Agreement. After the transfer, ZS intends to decommission the Zion units. The application for transfer does not propose any physical or operational changes to the Zion facility. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter sent to Exelon on February 21, 2008, found the application acceptable to begin a more detailed technical review. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and Orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. An Environmental Assessment

(EA)will not be performed because, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21), license transfer approvals and associated license amendments are categorically excluded from the requirements to perform an EA. As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and intervention via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C, “Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions To Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,” of 10 CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

(5)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request

(1)a digital identification

(ID)certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format

(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3)), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met. As indicated below, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.310(g), any hearing would be subject to the procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 2, subpart M. III. Opportunity To Provide Written Comments Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Comments received after 30 days will be considered if practicable to do so, but only those comments received on or before the due date can be assured consideration. For further details with respect to this license transfer application, see the application dated January 25, 2008, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly-available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency-Wide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E8-11353 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 52-017-COL; ASLBP No. 08-863-01-COL-BD01] Dominion Virginia Power; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the **Federal Register** , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, *see* 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Dominion Virginia Power (North Anna Nuclear Power Station Unit 3) This proceeding concerns

(1)a Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing submitted by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and the People's Alliance for Clean Energy, and

(2)a Request of the North Carolina Utilities Commission for an Opportunity to Participate in any Hearing, both of which were submitted in response to a March 10, 2008, Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene on a Combined License for North Anna Unit 3 (73 FR 12,760), and an April 18, 2008, Supplement to Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Petition for Leave to Intervene on a Combined License for North Anna Unit 3 (73 FR 21,162). The Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing challenges the application filed by Dominion Virginia Power pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 for a combined license for North Anna Unit 3, which would be located at the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Virginia. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Ronald M. Spritzer, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dr. Alice C. Mignerey, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Additionally, during the contention admissibility phase of this proceeding, Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal shall function as the Board's Special Assistant pursuant to 10 CFR 2.322(a)(3). All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139). Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May 2008. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E8-11339 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-63; EA-08-144] In the Matter of: FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC Seabrook Station; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional Security Measures and Fingerprinting for Unescorted Access to Seabrook Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Kevin M. Witt, Project Manager, Rules, Inspections and Operations Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone:

(301)492-3323; fax number:

(301)492-3348; e-mail: *Kevin.Witt@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the matter of Seabrook Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately). II. Further Information I NRC has issued a general license to FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC

(FPL)authorizing the operation of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) part 72. This Order is being issued to FPL, which has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require FPL to maintain safeguards and contingency plan procedures to respond to threats of radiological sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of radiological sabotage, in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable. Inasmuch as an insider has an opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these measures to be prudent. Comparable Orders have been issued to all licensees that currently store spent fuel, or have identified near-term plans to store spent fuel, in an ISFSI. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October 16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of operating ISFSIs, to place the actions taken in response to the Advisories into the established regulatory framework, and to implement additional security enhancements that emerged from NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has conducted a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures

(ASMs)are required to address the current threat environment, in a consistent manner, throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 of this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. The Commission recognizes that FPL may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, or on their own. It also recognizes that some measures may not be possible nor necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at FPL's facility, to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. Although the ASMs already implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes that these actions must be supplemented further because the current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is appropriate to require certain ASMs, and these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, licenses issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that, in light of the common defense and security circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73, *it is hereby ordered,* EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, *that your general license is modified as follows:* A. FPL shall comply with the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in FPL's security plan. FPL shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachments 1 and 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation no later than 180 days from the date of this Order, with the exception of the ASM B.4 of Attachment 1 [“Additional Security Measures

(ASMs)for Physical Protection of Dry Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs)”], which shall be implemented no later than 365 days from the date of this Order. In any event, FPL shall complete implementation of all ASMs no later than 30 days before the first day that spent fuel is scheduled to be initially placed in the ISFSI. B.1. FPL shall, within twenty

(20)days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission:

(1)If it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2;

(2)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary, in its specific circumstances; or

(3)if implementation of any of the requirements would cause FPL to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide FPL's justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any specific requirement. 2. If FPL considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, FPL must notify the Commission, within twenty

(20)days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 and/or 2 requirements in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility, to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, FPL must supplement its response, to Condition B.1 of this Order, to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as required under Condition B.1. C.1. FPL shall, within twenty

(20)days of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachments 1 and 2. 2. FPL shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2. D. All measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. FPL's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled, in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, for good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, FPL must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 20 days of the date of the Order. In addition, FPL, and any other person adversely affected by this Order, may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of the Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made, in writing, to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. If the answer includes a request for a hearing, it shall, under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which FPL relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. If a person other than FPL requests a hearing, that person shall set forth, with particularity, the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order, and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (August 28, 2007) and codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements associated with E-Filing, at least five

(5)days before the filing deadline, the requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary, by e-mail, at *Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov* , or by calling

(301)415-1677, to request:

(1)A digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any NRC proceeding in which it is participating; and/or

(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding [even in instances when the requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate]. Each requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is also available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, he/she can then submit a request for a hearing through EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF), in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at * http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html * . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its document through EIE. To be timely, electronic filings must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, on the due date. On receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for, and receive, digital ID certificates, before hearing requests are filed, so that they may obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact-Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* , or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is

(800)397-4209 or, locally

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file motions, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filings, requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:

(1)First-class mail, addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete, by first-class mail, as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service on depositing the document with the provider of the service. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers, in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair-Use application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their works. If a hearing is requested by FPL or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), FPL may, in addition to requesting a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions as specified in Section III shall be final twenty

(20)days from the date of this Order, without further Order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions, as specified in Section III, shall be final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of May 2008. Michael F. Weber, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Attachment 1—Additional Security Measures

(ASMs)for Physical Protection of Dry Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) Contains Safeguards Information and Is Not Included in the Federal Register Notice Attachment 2—Additional Security Measures for Access Authorization and Fingerprinting at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, Dated December 19, 2007 A. General Basis Criteria 1. These additional security measures

(ASMs)are established to delineate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licensee's responsibility to enhance security measures related to authorization for unescorted access to the protected area of an ISFSI in response to the current threat environment. 2. Licensees whose ISFSI is collocated with a power reactor may choose to comply with the NRC-approved reactor access authorization program for the associated reactor as an alternative means to satisfy the provisions of sections B through G below. Otherwise, licensees shall comply with the access authorization and fingerprinting requirements of sections B through G of these ASMs. 3. Licensees shall clearly distinguish in their 20-day response which method they intend to use in order to comply with these ASMs. B. Additional Security Measures for Access Authorization Program 1. The licensee shall develop, implement and maintain a program, or enhance their existing program, designed to ensure that persons granted unescorted access to the protected area of an ISFSI are trustworthy and reliable and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, including a potential to commit radiological sabotage. a. To establish trustworthiness and reliability, the licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain procedures for conducting and completing background investigations, prior to granting access. The scope of background investigations must address at least the past 3 years and, as a minimum, must include: i. Fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)identification and criminal history records check (CHRC). Where an applicant for unescorted access has been previously fingerprinted with a favorably completed CHRC (such as a CHRC pursuant to compliance with orders for access to safeguards information) the licensee may accept the results of that CHRC, and need not submit another set of fingerprints, provided the CHRC was completed not more than 3 years from the date of the application for unescorted access. ii. Verification of employment with each previous employer for the most recent year from the date of application. iii. Verification of employment with an employer of the longest duration during any calendar month for the remaining next most recent two years. iv. A full credit history review. v. An interview with not less than two character references, developed by the investigator. vi. A review of official identification (e.g., driver's license, passport, government identification, state, province or country of birth issued certificate of birth) to allow comparison of personal information data provided by the applicant. The licensee shall maintain a photocopy of the identifying document(s) on file, in accordance with “Protection of Information,” in Section G of these ASMs. vii. Licensees shall confirm eligibility for employment through the regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and shall verify and ensure to the extent possible, the accuracy of the provided social security number and alien registration number as applicable. b. The procedures developed or enhanced shall include measures for confirming the term, duration, and character of military service for the past 3 years, and/or academic enrollment and attendance in lieu of employment for the past 5 years. c. Licensees need not conduct an independent investigation for individuals employed at a facility who possess active “Q” or “L” clearances or possess another active U.S. Government granted security clearance, i.e., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. d. A review of the applicant's criminal history, obtained from local criminal justice resources, may be included in addition to the FBI CHRC, and is encouraged if the results of the FBI CHRC, employment check, or credit check disclose derogatory information. The scope of the applicant's local criminal history check shall cover all residences of record for the past 3 years from the date of the application for unescorted access. 2. The licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a CHRC solely for the purpose of determining an individual's suitability for unescorted access to the protected area of an ISFSI. 3. The licensee shall document the basis for its determination for granting or denying access to the protected area of an ISFSI. 4. The licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain procedures for updating background investigations for persons who are applying for reinstatement of unescorted access. Licensees need not conduct an independent reinvestigation for individuals who possess active “Q” or “L” clearances or possess another active U.S. Government granted security clearance, i.e., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. 5. The licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain procedures for reinvestigations of persons granted unescorted access, at intervals not to exceed 5 years. Licensees need not conduct an independent reinvestigation for individuals employed at a facility who possess active “Q” or “L” clearances or possess another active U.S. Government granted security clearance, i.e., Top Secret, Secret or Confidential. 6. The licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain procedures designed to ensure that persons who have been denied unescorted access authorization to the facility are not allowed access to the facility, even under escort. 7. The licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain an audit program for licensee and contractor/vendor access authorization programs that evaluate all program elements and include a person knowledgeable and practiced in access authorization program performance objectives to assist in the overall assessment of the site's program effectiveness. C. Fingerprinting Program Requirements 1. In a letter to the NRC, the licensee must nominate an individual who will review the results of the FBI CHRCs to make trustworthiness and reliability determinations for unescorted access to an ISFSI. This individual, referred to as the “reviewing official,” must be someone who requires unescorted access to the ISFSI. The NRC will review the CHRC of any individual nominated to perform the reviewing official function. Based on the results of the CHRC, the NRC staff will determine whether this individual may have access. If the NRC determines that the nominee may not be granted such access, that individual will be prohibited from obtaining access. 1 Once the NRC approves a reviewing official, the reviewing official is the only individual permitted to make access determinations for other individuals who have been identified by the licensee as having the need for unescorted access to the ISFSI, and have been fingerprinted and have had a CHRC in accordance with these ASMs. The reviewing official can only make access determinations for other individuals, and therefore cannot approve other individuals to act as reviewing officials. Only the NRC can approve a reviewing official. Therefore, if the licensee wishes to have a new or additional reviewing official, the NRC must approve that individual before he or she can act in the capacity of a reviewing official. 1 The NRC's determination of this individual's unescorted access to the ISFSI, in accordance with the process is an administrative determination that is outside the scope of the Order. 2. No person may have access to SGI or unescorted access to any facility subject to NRC regulation if the NRC has determined, in accordance with its administrative review process based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and CHRC, that the person may not have access to SGI or unescorted access to any facility subject to NRC regulation. 3. All fingerprints obtained by the licensee pursuant to this Order must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the FBI. 4. The licensee shall notify each affected individual that the fingerprints will be used to conduct a review of his/her criminal history record and inform the individual of the procedures for revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as specified in the “Right to Correct and Complete Information” in section F of these ASMs. 5. Fingerprints need not be taken if the employed individual (e.g., a licensee employee, contractor, manufacturer, or supplier) is relieved from the fingerprinting requirement by 10 CFR 73.61, has a favorably adjudicated U.S. Government CHRC within the last five

(5)years, or has an active federal security clearance. Written confirmation from the Agency/employer who granted the federal security clearance or reviewed the CHRC must be provided to the licensee. The licensee must retain this documentation for a period of three

(3)years from the date the individual no longer requires access to the facility. D. Prohibitions 1. A licensee shall not base a final determination to deny an individual unescorted access to the protected area of an ISFSI solely on the basis of information received from the FBI involving: An arrest more than one

(1)year old for which there is no information of the disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal of the charge or an acquittal. 2. A licensee shall not use information received from a CHRC obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the licensee use the information in any way which would discriminate among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, or age. E. Procedures for Processing Fingerprint Checks 1. For the purpose of complying with this Order, licensees shall, using an appropriate method listed in 10 CFR 73.4, submit to the NRC's Division of Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T-6E46, one completed, legible standard fingerprint card (Form FD-258, ORIMDNRCOOOZ) or, where practicable, other fingerprint records for each individual seeking unescorted access to an ISFSI, to the Director of the Division of Facilities and Security, marked for the attention of the Division's Criminal History Check Section. Copies of these forms may be obtained by writing the Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by calling

(301)415-5877, or by e-mail to *forms@nrc.gov* . Practicable alternative formats are set forth in 10 CFR 73.4. The licensee shall establish procedures to ensure that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or incomplete cards. 2. The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness. Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or evident errors will be returned to the licensee for corrections. The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one re-submission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one free resubmission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number reflected on the resubmission. If additional submissions are necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will require a second payment of the processing fee. 3. Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application. The licensee shall submit payment of the processing fees electronically. In order to be able to submit secure electronic payments, licensees will need to establish an account with Pay.Gov ( *https://www.pay.gov* ). To request an account, the licensee shall send an e-mail to *det@nrc.gov* . The e-mail must include the licensee's company name, address, point of contact (POC), POC e-mail address, and phone number. The NRC will forward the request to Pay.Gov; who will contact the licensee with a password and user lD. Once licensees have established an account and submitted payment to Pay.Gov, they shall obtain a receipt. The licensee shall submit the receipt from Pay.Gov to the NRC along with fingerprint cards. For additional guidance on making electronic payments, contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities and Security, at

(301)415-7739. Combined payment for multiple applications is acceptable. The application fee (currently $36) is the sum of the user fee charged by the FBI for each fingerprint card or other fingerprint record submitted by the NRC on behalf of a licensee, and an NRC processing fee, which covers administrative costs associated with NRC handling of licensee fingerprint submissions. The Commission will directly notify licensees who are subject to this regulation of any fee changes. 4. The Commission will forward to the submitting licensee all data received from the FBI as a result of the licensee's application(s) for criminal history records checks, including the FBI fingerprint record. F. Right To Correct and Complete Information 1. Prior to any final adverse determination, the licensee shall make available to the individual the contents of any criminal history records obtained from the FBI for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information. Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this notification must be maintained by the licensee for a period of one

(1)year from the date of notification. 2. If, after reviewing the record, an individual believes that it is incorrect or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in the record, the individual may initiate challenge procedures. These procedures include either direct application by the individual challenging the record to the agency (i.e., law enforcement agency) that contributed the questioned information, or direct challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on the criminal history record to the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Identification Division, Washington, DC 20537-9700 (as set forth in 28 CFR 16.30 through 16.34). In the latter case, the FBI forwards the challenge to the agency that submitted the data and requests that agency to verify or correct the challenged entry. Upon receipt of an official communication directly from the agency that contributed the original information, the FBI Identification Division makes any changes necessary in accordance with the information supplied by that agency. The licensee must provide at least ten

(10)days for an individual to initiate an action challenging the results of a FBI CHRC after the record is made available for his/her review. The licensee may make a final access determination based upon the criminal history record only upon receipt of the FBI's ultimate confirmation or correction of the record. Upon a final adverse determination on access to an ISFSI, the licensee shall provide the individual its documented basis for denial. Access to an ISFSI shall not be granted to an individual during the review process. G. Protection of Information 1. The licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain a system for personnel information management with appropriate procedures for the protection of personal, confidential information. This system shall be designed to prohibit unauthorized access to sensitive information and to prohibit modification of the information without authorization. 2. Each licensee who obtains a criminal history record on an individual pursuant to this Order shall establish and maintain a system of files and procedures, for protecting the record and the personal information from unauthorized disclosure. 3. The licensee may not disclose the record or personal information collected and maintained to persons other than the subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in the process of determining suitability for unescorted access to the protected area of an ISFSI. No individual authorized to have access to the information may re-disseminate the information to any other individual who does not have the appropriate need-to-know. 4. The personal information obtained on an individual from a criminal history record check may be transferred to another licensee if the gaining licensee receives the individual's written request to re-disseminate the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable physical characteristics for identification purposes. 5. The licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained under this section, available for examination by an authorized representative of the NRC to determine compliance with the regulations and laws. [FR Doc. E8-11346 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments *Summary:* In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to request an extension of a currently approved collection of information: 3220-0034, Statement of Authority to Act for Employee. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine

(1)The practical utility of the collection;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Under Section 5(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), claims for benefits are to be made in accordance with such regulations as the Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)shall prescribe. The provisions for claiming sickness benefits as provided by Section 2 of the RUIA are prescribed in 20 CFR 335.2. Included in these provisions is the RRB's acceptance of forms executed by someone else on behalf of an employee if the RRB is satisfied that the employee is sick or injured to the extent of being unable to sign forms. The RRB utilizes Form SI-10, Statement of Authority to Act for Employee, to provide the means for an individual to apply for authority to act on behalf of an incapacitated employee and also to obtain the information necessary to determine that the delegation should be made. Part I of the form is completed by the applicant for the authority and Part II is completed by the employee's doctor. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. The RRB proposes no changes to Form SI-10. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (73 FR 13261 on March 12, 2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request

(ICR)*Title:* Statement of Authority to Act for Employee. *OMB Control Number:* OMB 3220-0034. *Form(s) submitted:* SI-10. *Type of request:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or Households. *Abstract:* Under 20 CFR 335.2, the Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)accepts claims for sickness benefits by other than the sick or injured employees, provided the RRB has the information needed to satisfy itself that the delegation should be made. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes no changed to Form SI-10. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated Completion Time for Form(s):* Completion time for SI-10 is estimated at 6 minutes. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 400. *Total annual responses:* 400. *Total annual reporting hours:* 40. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer at (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11322 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Upon written request, copies available from:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. *Extension:* Form S-4; OMB Control No. 3235-0324; SEC File No. 270-287. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Form S-4 (17 CFR 239.25) is the registration form used to register securities issued in business combination transactions under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ). The information collected is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available to investors in connection with business combination transactions. Form S-4 takes approximately 4,064 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 619 registrants annually. We estimate that 25% of the 4,064 hours per response (1,016 hours) is prepared by the registrant for an annual reporting burden of 628,904 hours (1,016 hours per response x 619 responses). The remaining 75% of the burden hours is prepared by outside counsel. Written comments are invited on:

(a)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;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: May 14, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11280 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Upon written request, copies available from:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 17a-22; SEC File No. 270-202; OMB Control No. 3235-0196. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. • Rule 17a-22 (17 CFR 240.17a-22)—Supplemental Material of Registered Clearing Agencies Rule 17a-22 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 requires all registered clearing agencies to file with the Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make generally available to their participants or other entities with whom they have a significant relationship. The filings with the Commission must be made within ten days after the materials are issued or made generally available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's appropriate regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy of the material with its appropriate regulatory agency. 1 15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a-22 to determine whether a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The information filed aides the Commission in determining whether such changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. The respondents to Rule 17a-22 are registered clearing agencies. The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule 17a-22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per year per active clearing agency. The Commission staff estimates that each response requires approximately .25 hour (fifteen minutes), which represents the time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency to properly identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes copies, and mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total annual burden for all active clearing agencies is 300 hours (1,200 multiplied by .25 hour) and a total of 50 hours (1,200 responses multiplied by .25 hour, divided by 6 active clearing agencies) per year are expended by each respondent to comply with the rule. Written comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(SBDC)Advisory Board. DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2 p.m. EST. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Small Business and Technology Development Center, 5 West Hargett Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, North Carolina. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board: • Agenda for tour of North Carolina Small Business and Technology Development Center. • Discussion on Board roles, responsibilities, and expectations. • New Board nominations. • SBA Update from AA/OSBDCs. • White Paper discussion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Board must contact Alanna Falcone by Tuesday, May 27, 2008, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202-619-1612, Fax 202-481-0134, e-mail, *alanna.falcone@sba.gov* . Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above. Cherylyn H. Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11358 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6214] Certifications Pursuant to Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 SUMMARY: On May 1, 2008, the Department of State certified, pursuant to Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (“Section 609”), that 16 nations have adopted programs to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in their shrimp fisheries comparable to the program in effect in the United States. The Department also certified that the fishing environments in 24 other countries and one economy, Hong Kong, do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles protected under Section 609. Shrimp imports from any nation not certified were prohibited effective May 1, 2008 pursuant to Section 609. EFFECTIVE DATE: On Publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clayton Stanger, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-7818; telephone:

(202)647-2335. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 prohibits imports of certain categories of shrimp unless the President certifies to the Congress not later than May 1 of each year either:

(1)That the harvesting nation has adopted a program governing the incidental capture of sea turtles in its commercial shrimp fishery comparable to the program in effect in the United States and has an incidental take rate comparable to that of the United States; or

(2)that the fishing environment in the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. The President has delegated the authority to make this certification to the Department of State. Revised State Department guidelines for making the required certifications were published in the **Federal Register** on July 2, 1999 (Vol. 64, No. 130, Public Notice 3086). On May 1, 2008, the Department certified 16 nations on the basis that their sea turtle protection programs are comparable to that of the United States: Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, and Venezuela. The Department also certified 24 shrimp harvesting nations and one economy as having fishing environments that do not pose a danger to sea turtles. Sixteen nations have shrimping grounds only in cold waters where the risk of taking sea turtles is negligible. They are: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Eight nations and one economy only harvest shrimp using small boats with crews of less than five that use manual rather than mechanical means to retrieve nets, or catch shrimp using other methods that do not threaten sea turtles. Use of such small-scale technology does not adversely affect sea turtles. The eight nations and one economy are: the Bahamas, China, the Dominican Republic, Fiji, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Oman, Peru and Sri Lanka. The Department of State has communicated the certifications under Section 609 to the Office of Field Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In addition, this **Federal Register** Notice confirms that the requirement for all DS-2031 forms from uncertified nations must be originals and signed by the competent domestic fisheries authority. This policy change was first announced in a Department of State media note released on December 21, 2004. In order for shrimp harvested with Turtle Excluder Devices

(TEDs)in an uncertified nation to be eligible for importation into the United States under the exemption: “Shrimp harvested by commercial shrimp trawl vessels using TEDs comparable in effectiveness to those required in the United States”, the Department of State must determine in advance that the government of the harvesting nation has put in place adequate procedures to ensure the accurate completion of the DS-2031 forms. At this time, the Department has made such a determination only with respect to Brazil and Australia. Thus, the importation of TED-caught shrimp from any other uncertified nation will not be allowed. For Brazil, only shrimp harvested in the northern shrimp fishery are eligible for entry under this exemption. For Australia, shrimp harvested in the Exmouth, Northern Prawn Fishery and Torres Strait Fishery are eligible for entry under this exemption. In addition, the Department has already made a determination with regard to wild-harvest shrimp harvested in the Spencer Gulf region in Australia. This product may be exported to the U.S. using a DS-2031 under the exemption for “shrimp harvested in a manner or under circumstances determined by the Department of State not to pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles.” An official of the Government of Australia still also must certify the DS-2031. Dated: May 2, 2008. David A. Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-11380 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 7, 2008 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2007-0084. *Date Filed:* March 7, 2008. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* March 28, 2008. *Description:* Application of Colgan Air, Inc. requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between

(i)a point or points in the United States and a point or points in all countries with existing “Open Skies” Air Services Agreements with the United States (“U.S. open-skies partner”), via intermediate points and beyond; and

(ii)a point or points in the United States and a point or points in all countries that in the future become U.S. open-skies partners, via intermediate points and beyond. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-11354 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2008-0221] Operating Limitations at Newark Liberty International Airport AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at Newark Liberty International Airport. SUMMARY: In a proposed order published on March 18, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)tentatively identified the parameters of an order that would temporarily limit scheduled flight operations at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). 1 The FAA issued the proposal as a result of persistent congestion and delays at EWR during the peak operating hours, as well as a dramatic projected increase in flight delays at the airport during the summer of 2008 if proposed schedules were implemented as requested by carriers. After evaluating the written comment submitted to the public docket in this matter, the FAA is issuing this final Order, which will take effect at 6 a.m., Eastern Time, on June 20, 2008. 1 73 FR 14,552 (Mar. 18, 2008). If you wish to review the background documents or comments received in this proceeding, you may go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the electronic docket. You may also go to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry Shakley, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone—(202) 267-9424; e-mail— *gerry.shakley@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background EWR has historically experienced a significant number of delays relative to the other airports in the domestic system. When ranked according to the proportion of delayed operations, EWR has frequently been the most delayed airport in the country. Moreover, EWR's on-time performance has deteriorated in recent years. The percent of on-time gate arrivals within 15 minutes of the scheduled time decreased from 70.66% in fiscal year

(FY)2000 to 63.97% in FY 2006 and to 61.71% in FY 2007. The average daily counts of arrival delays greater than one hour were 54 in FY 2000; 79 in FY 2006; and 93 in FY 2007, an increase of almost 18% in the last fiscal year alone. One of the factors contributing to the EWR's declining performance has been the carriers' scheduling practices at the airport. Daily operations have been relatively stable while delays have continued to increase. In Fiscal Year

(FY)2000, there were 1,253 average daily operations. In FY 2007, there were 1,219 average daily operations, a decrease of about 3 percent. Demand during the most desirable peak hours, however, approached or exceeded the average runway capacity resulting in volume-related delays. The cumulative impact of such scheduling by all carriers can result in delays even under ideal weather conditions. However, the resulting delays become even more pronounced when weather or other operating conditions reduce the airport's capacity below optimal levels. During the summer of 2007, in addition to the delays experienced at EWR, another New York-area airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), also experienced significant congestion-related delays. Based on both airports' summer 2007 performance, and in the absence of any major capacity enhancing projects, the FAA designated the airports as Level 2, Schedules Facilitated Airports for the summer 2008 scheduling season, in accordance with the International Air Transport Association

(IATA)Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines. 2 In designating the airports as IATA Level 2, Schedules Facilitated Airports, the FAA required all U.S. and foreign air carriers to report to the FAA their proposed summer 2008 scheduled operations at the airports during designated hours. With respect to EWR, the FAA specifically noted that it intended to work with carriers on the flight operations planned from 7 until 10 a.m. and from 2 until 10 p.m., Eastern Time. 3 The FAA further specified that it was considering its options to “further address congestion and improve operational performance at EWR, including the timing of flights at the airport and their impact on the airport's operation.” 4 2 72 FR 54,317 (Sept. 24, 2007). 3 *Id.* , at 54,318. 4 *Id* . The information that U.S. and foreign air carriers reported to the FAA regarding their proposed operations at EWR reflected a significant increase in scheduled operations, especially during the most oversubscribed hours when the airport routinely experienced delays. U.S. and foreign air carriers requested about 100 new operations, adding to the schedules that produced pronounced delays during summer 2007. The proposed schedules in the afternoon and evening period were of the greatest concern. For example, several consecutive hours would have had demand for arrivals or departures in the mid-90s and others in the upper 80s. By contrast, EWR's adjusted average airport capacity reflects that, from September 2006 through August 2007, the airport handled or was capable of handling an average of 83 operations per hour. The FAA modeled the level of delays that passengers transiting EWR could expect if the carriers were to operate the summer 2008 schedules that they proposed. When compared with EWR's modeled baseline delays during the summer of 2007, the average arrival delays would have increased 38% to 35 minutes; the average number of arrival delays of at least one hour would have increased 50%; and the mean arrival delay would have reached almost 80 minutes by 7 p.m. The proposed schedules also would have negatively affected departures. 5 5 As with previous aircraft queuing model runs produced for the FAA by the MITRE Corporation's Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, it was assumed that no scheduled operation was cancelled. In response to the U.S. and foreign air carriers' proposed summer 2008 schedules, the FAA held discussions with many of the carriers to validate their schedule requests and to ask them to reconsider their proposed timings in light of the airport's capacity limitations. Although there were some modest revisions to the proposed schedules, it was clear that demand would continue to exceed capacity without further action, as some carriers indicated that they would operate as proposed despite the FAA's concern about the impact on delays. In addition, the FAA anticipated that carriers might try to add still more operations at EWR when a forthcoming operational limitation took effect at nearby JFK, 6 in effect shifting a portion of that problem to an already oversubscribed EWR. As a result, the FAA elected to modify EWR's IATA designation to a Level 3, Coordinated Airport for summer 2008. 7 This designation provided notice, in accordance with international norms, that the FAA would focus proposed new operations at the airport on hours during which airport capacity is available and to deny proposed new operations during oversubscribed hours. Some carriers, including Continental Airlines, the primary hub carrier at EWR, moved flights from historic peak hours to less congested times in order to assist with delay reduction. The FAA published in the appendix to the proposed order the results of the discussions with U.S. and foreign air carriers and our approved schedules reflecting very limited peak-hour growth. 8 While the proposed order, through the appendix, provided the public with notice of the state of the FAA's discussions with carriers under the IATA Worldwide Scheduling Guideline process, the principal purpose of the proposed order was to describe and to raise for public comment a series of practical considerations that the FAA must address when it undertakes to place a temporary limit on operations at an airport. 6 73 FR 3,510 (Jan. 18, 2008) (order limiting scheduled operations at JFK). 7 72 FR 73,418 (Dec. 27, 2007). 8 73 FR at 14,558-65. II. Summary and Analysis of the Comments As of May 1, 2008 the FAA received in the public docket 78 written comments on the FAA's proposed order. The vast majority of the commenters support the FAA's effort, as a general matter, to control congestion and delays at EWR. A small number of comments question certain aspects of the FAA's proposal. One commenter—Virgin America, Inc.—expresses its preference that the FAA had followed a different process in limiting operations at EWR. Virgin America specifically would prefer that the FAA had conducted a scheduling reduction meeting for scheduled operations at EWR, as the FAA did in limiting scheduled operations at JFK. The FAA holds a number of options in controlling congestion at a particular airport. As the FAA articulated when it requested the carriers' anticipated summer 2008 schedules involving EWR, the FAA considered them all in selecting its course with respect to EWR. There is no requirement that the FAA pursue a particular avenue in addressing airport congestion, and small differences in a particular airport's operations can argue for a slightly different solution. The FAA's election to improve the carriers' scheduling and EWR's performance through a combination of the IATA scheduling process and a voluntary drawing down of carriers' schedules during the oversubscribed hours was a rational method of addressing congestion-related delay at the airport. Moreover, and equally important, it was both an expedient course and a permissible exercise of the FAA's discretion. Nor is it apparent that conducting a scheduling reduction meeting like that held for JFK would have led to a different result than that expressed in the proposed order for EWR. The FAA published both JFK's and EWR's designation as IATA Level 2, Schedules Facilitated Airports in the same document. 9 The starting point for the FAA's discussions with carriers at the subsequent scheduling reduction meeting for JFK was the proposed schedules that the carriers submitted pursuant to JFK's designation as an IATA Level 2, Schedules Facilitated Airport. Many carriers at JFK, including those with the largest presence at the airport, agreed to reduce flights during the most desirable hours in order to improve operational performance and to benefit all operators. At the same time, the FAA ensured that other carriers were restricted from adding new flights during the previously oversubscribed hours, which would have offset the delay reduction that the other carriers' schedule adjustments achieved. The FAA accommodated a few timely requested new operations during the hours of peak demand. 9 Although Virgin America identified its intention to conduct operations at JFK during summer 2008, it filed no such intention in response to EWR's IATA Level 2 designation. After the FAA declared EWR an IATA Level 3, Fully Coordinated Airport, Virgin America indicated for the first time a desire to provide scheduled service there. The FAA applied the same general policy approach at EWR, with the objective of preventing a further degradation in operational performance by keeping demand within the average available capacity. We recognize Virgin America's position that it did not take advantage of the IATA schedule submission requirement or the initial ensuing IATA schedule discussions regarding EWR. As a result, in consideration of Virgin America's newly advanced request for scheduled operations, the FAA attempted to accommodate Virgin America during the hours that are scheduled below the airport's adjusted average hourly capacity. The discussions leading to the FAA's proposed order, including the conversations with Virgin America, necessarily had the same tenor as a scheduling reduction meeting's discussions. If the FAA were to conduct a scheduling reduction meeting for EWR, we do not expect that the product would differ materially from the results published in the appendix to the proposed order. Virgin America and the Air Carrier Association of America also state that the proposed order diminishes the ability of new entrants to compete at EWR and strengthens the position of EWR's hub carrier. In particular, Virgin America notes the potential that more established carriers could abuse the proposed mechanisms of retiming operations and permitting operational growth at EWR. Virgin America and the Air Carrier Association of America recommend a periodic withdrawal and redistribution of Operating Authorizations to stimulate competition. We emphasize, however, that we intended the proposed order to describe a short-term vehicle to preserve realistic scheduling at EWR while longer term solutions are applied to relieve EWR's congestion and delay. The mechanisms that we identified to permit operational flexibility and growth within the airport's capacity, if applied fairly and without discrimination, should provide opportunities during the relatively brief duration of this final Order. While we anticipate that all carriers will conduct their transactions under this Order in a principled way, the FAA will closely monitor the operation of the airport and the application of the mechanisms for the trade and lease of Operating Authorizations while this Order remains in effect. If we detect unfair or anticompetitive behavior, we will not hesitate to take corrective action and to propose more stringent controls on such transactions in the future. One commenter—Porter Airlines, Inc.—requests an amendment to the appendix of the proposed order to grant it fourteen total operations at EWR during the time periods that it originally requested of the FAA. Porter contends that it received an approved schedule from the EWR Terminal/Gate Schedules Facilitator and that the FAA should allow it to operate that schedule. Porter, as well as the Air Transport Association of Canada, also contends that the FAA's proposed allocations would violate the U.S.-Canada Open Skies Agreement. In a supplemental filing, Porter asks the FAA to reconsider the allocation of Operating Authorizations to Porter if any Operating Authorization becomes available in the future, such as by the revised operating plans of other carriers. 10 10 Eos Airlines, for example, recently ceased operations after April 27, 2008. Eos does not have historic scheduled operations at EWR, and it has not commenced the operations it planned to conduct at EWR this summer and for which the FAA proposed to allocate Operating Authorizations. Because Eos has ceased to conduct scheduled operations, the FAA is not allocating Operating Authorizations to Eos in the appendix to this final Order. Throughout the process that led to the FAA's proposed order, the FAA's representatives were candid during and after the IATA Schedules Conference in November 2007 regarding the potential for restricted operations at EWR, particularly in the already oversubscribed afternoon and evening hours. The FAA expressly made Porter aware that it was not granting approval, based on runway capacity, for all Porter's proposed new operations during the peak hours, that the FAA was continuing to seek voluntary moves by carriers to retime schedule requests, and that any plans to conduct scheduled operations during those periods would be at Porter's own risk. Consistent with the FAA's preliminary assessment of the operational impact of the carriers' proposed schedules, the FAA determined that it was necessary to modify EWR's designation from Level 2 to Level 3 when it became clear that voluntary schedule adjustments by the carriers to avoid the overscheduling of EWR's peak hours were not achievable. With respect to the FAA's proposed allocation of Operating Authorizations, the U.S.-Canada Open Skies Agreement requires the FAA to accord fair and equal, not preferential, treatment. Contrary to Porter Airlines' suggestion, the FAA's proposal treats Porter Airlines identically to all air carriers that are similarly situated at EWR. In addition, like all other carriers, Porter Airlines will retain the flexibility under this Order to trade, to lease, and to request retimings of its scheduled operations to enhance its competitive posture. Retiming of an approved Operating Authorization for any carrier, however, would be granted only if capacity exists, if the FAA determines that it does not diminish the efficiency of the airport's operations, and if it is otherwise consistent with the provisions and policies expressed in this Order. Porter's request in its supplemental filing for an additional two Operating Authorizations in the 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. hours and its request to retime an approved arrival in the 9 p.m. half hour to the 8 p.m. hour are denied. Shifting a 9 p.m. half hour flight to the earlier, more problematic hours would increase congestion and would not be equitable to other carriers that are unable to make similar moves. As a carrier that did not have any historic operations at EWR but that timely indicated that it would provide summer 2008 service, Porter Airlines was permitted one new roundtrip during the airport's busiest period, from 3 p.m. through 8:59 p.m. The FAA proposed similar allocations for two other new entrant carriers that timely indicated their intention to initiate service at EWR. By contrast, other carriers, including those with a limited existing presence at the airport, were not permitted to add new flights during those hours. In addition, other carriers either removed or rescheduled some historically conducted operations during that period to reduce delays. Adding even a few flights to that period diminishes the delay reduction benefits that the voluntary moves of other carriers have achieved. Accordingly, the FAA's manner of accommodating new entrant carriers at EWR is adopted as proposed. Air Canada, the Air Transport Association of America, and American Airlines recommend adjustments to the FAA's proposed 80% usage requirement for Operating Authorizations. They request that the FAA consider an Operating Authorization as used if the carrier elects to cancel a flight due to a ground delay program. The Air Transport Association and American Airlines further request that the FAA consider an Operating Authorization used if the carrier elects to cancel a flight because a de-icing program is in effect. For the present time, the FAA has decided not to amend the proposal to include categorical exclusions from the minimum usage requirement for flight cancellations for reasons such as ground delay or de-icing programs. In arriving at this conclusion, we understand that, during extreme conditions of extended delays or reduced capacity, carriers may find it necessary or practical to cancel a flight rather than conduct it several hours later. In such situations, carriers might accommodate passengers efficiently on other flights, permitting carriers to work on overall network recovery through a tactical use of flight cancellations. Moreover, under these circumstances, flight cancellations may deliver operational benefits to the National Airspace System, because delays would be even longer for all system users absent flight cancellations during reduced capacity conditions. Nevertheless, we must balance these considerations against the overall efficient use of a scarce operational resource. The proposed minimum usage requirement permits carriers to suspend flights for operational reasons up to 20% of the time. Furthermore, the FAA may waive the usage requirement in the face of highly unusual and unpredictable conditions that are beyond the control of the carriers and that affect carrier operations for at least five consecutive days. Under normal circumstances, this degree of flexibility should be sufficient to absorb the occasional cancellation of a scheduled operation and still permit carriers to meet the minimum usage threshold, if the planned usage is near 100%. Carriers that do not schedule operations for all their assigned authority increase the risk of falling below the minimum usage threshold, and it is not the FAA's intention to facilitate a carrier's underutilization of an Operating Authorization by granting additional usage exceptions. 11 While this Order is in effect, the FAA invites carriers to highlight specific instances in which the available measures appear insufficient. Such information may provide the good cause necessary to modify this Order. 11 We further note that, under this Order, carriers may return Operating Authorizations to the FAA on or before the seasonal deadline for the periods during which the carriers do not intend to use them. This allows carriers to adjust their seasonal allocation to match more precisely the carriers' known schedules at the time of the deadline. Additionally, this Order creates a secondary market for the transfer of Operating Authorizations to another carrier that is able to use them. The Air Transport Association and American Airlines submitted comments on the FAA's proposed termination of the Order on October 24, 2009. In their opinion, the FAA could avoid the lack of certainty that a potential series of short-term extensions would cause if the FAA would tie the Order's expiration date to the effective date of a replacement rule. They note that such an approach was effective in the FAA order capping scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport. The FAA originally considered whether the termination date of this Order should be open-ended, tied to the adoption of a replacement rule, or as proposed, identified as a date certain. We rejected the notion of leaving this Order open-ended or tying its expiration to the effective date of a replacement rule. This Order is constructed to provide short-term relief from the congestion that EWR would otherwise experience. We do not deem it appropriate as a longer-term structure for EWR's operations. Accordingly, we will retain the Order's proposed expiration date. American Airlines suggests that the FAA's proposal to require carriers to use an Operating Authorization for 90 days before leasing or transferring it should be changed. Because Operating Authorizations were not previously assigned at EWR, American Airlines instead contends that a 90-day usage requirement in this context should look back to the period that carriers conducted the underlying historic operations before the final Order takes effect. According to American Airlines, the market for Operating Authorizations would otherwise be suppressed for most of the summer 2008 scheduling season—a prospect that Porter Airlines also views negatively in its comments. To facilitate the secondary market for Operating Authorizations during the summer of 2008, the FAA agrees that this limitation should be amended to permit an earlier lease or transfer of Operating Authorizations that correspond to historically conducted operations with one caveat. In particular, we remain concerned about a potential abuse here and in the future of the process under which the FAA arrives at the final allocations, whereby a carrier could accept Operating Authorizations to conduct new operations while also attempting to control via lease the operator of the carriers' historically conducted operations. This could serve as a disincentive for carriers to discuss their schedule plans in good faith, it is unfair to carriers that have concrete plans to serve the airport, and it could afford a carrier control over a greater share of the airport's operations than any portion that the carrier ever conducted there. Therefore, the FAA will amend the final Order to permit the lease or transfer of Operating Authorizations whenever the carrier can demonstrate that it operated the flight that corresponds to the Operating Authorization at least 80% of the 90-day period immediately preceding the lease or transfer. However, we will monitor the net effect of the carriers' lease transactions with respect to their newly allocated Operating Authorizations. If it is apparent that a carrier requested Operating Authorizations that it did not intend to utilize, the FAA may consider that circumstance in assessing the carrier's future representations with respect to its need for capacity at this or other airports. Kalitta Air, LLC, comments that it is uniquely burdened by the proposed order due to its contract with the United States Postal Service

(USPS)to carry mail for the U.S. military. It indicates that it regularly operates 10 or more departures from EWR each week but that the number and time of the flights may vary to meet the contractual requirements. Kalitta further notes that some periods of the year, such as the December holidays, have historically generated more flights and that it must operate additional flights to accommodate the mail during other times, as well. Kalitta cites as possible solutions a large pool of authority for day-of unscheduled operations, the use of “extra section” authority, and a reduction in the hours when operational limits will apply at EWR. Kalitta also indicates it would like to revise its historic summer 2007 schedules to operate at different times. The FAA understands that all carriers may need to revise their plans to conduct scheduled operations at EWR after this Order takes effect. The FAA intends to issue a proposal to institute a reservations system for unscheduled flights, and some of the issues that Kalitta raises regarding the availability of last-minute operations will be addressed in that context. A finite number of reservations are expected for unscheduled operations during the peak hours; however, there is a potential for additional reservations for last-minute unscheduled operations if operating and delay conditions permit. We expect that the ultimate structure for scheduled and unscheduled operations will accommodate the historic patterns of demand that cargo operators experience during particular times of year, such as the months of November and December, but some retiming of proposed schedules may be required. The type of operational flexibility that Kalitta seeks to conduct operations during EWR's busiest hours is not practical, given the airport's limited capacity and trend toward congestion-related delays. The service that Kalitta provides to meet its USPS contract may be unique in its individual circumstances, but it does not materially differ as a practical matter from the limitations imposed on other operators. In some respects, cargo operations may have options that are not reasonably available to passenger-carrying and other operators, permitting flights at less-congested times. To this degree, it may be easier for a cargo operator to trade for or lease Operating Authorizations at favorable times than is the case for other carriers operating at EWR. As with other carriers, the FAA will not accept changes from a cargo operator's historic operations if the net result would be increased congestion. For example, the FAA cannot approve Kalitta's request to move a flight from the 9 p.m. hour to the 7 p.m. hour. Nevertheless, the FAA will work with Kalitta—as it will continue to do with other carriers—on schedule adjustments, but those adjustments must recognize the limits under this Order. A number of the commenters express opinions regarding the FAA's future allocation of Operating Authorizations at EWR. American Airlines advocates the FAA's long-term use of the IATA Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines at all congested airports, whereas the Air Carrier Association of America opposes the FAA's reliance on the Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines. The Air Transport Association of America, the Air Transport Association of Canada, and American Airlines oppose the FAA's use of auctions to allocate new or returned capacity at EWR, and the Air Carrier Association of America identifies alternative market-based allocation concepts. The FAA's principal purpose in issuing the proposed order was to curb the overscheduling that passengers transiting EWR would experience during the summer of 2008 if the FAA failed to intervene. This final Order will result in significantly better performance at the airport than would occur if carriers were to implement the schedules that they originally proposed. The manner in which the FAA will allocate operational authority to conduct scheduled operations after this Order expires will be the subject of a rulemaking proceeding in a separate docket. Carriers that wish to register an opinion regarding that proposal should file their responsive written comments in the public docket that the FAA will open for that proceeding. Regarding the language in the proposed order that refers to a future auction of new and returned capacity at EWR while this final Order remains in effect, the FAA does not anticipate the immediate availability of a significant volume of new or returned capacity at EWR. However, the FAA expects that the need may arise to conduct an auction of new or returned capacity at EWR or JFK before the end of this calendar year. If this proves to be true, we anticipate that we would allocate such capacity for a 5- to 10-year term. The FAA has authority to lease real and personal property, including intangible property, to others. 49 U.S.C. 106(l)(6) and 106(n). Because the auction would address an FAA lease of Operating Authorizations awarded by the FAA under its leasing authority rather than under an administrative allocation, notice to the interested parties will be governed by applicable procurement law, rather than by the Administrative Procedure Act. The details regarding a potential auction will be disclosed when the FAA is ready to proceed with an auction. In accordance with the FAA's Acquisition Management System, the FAA will publicly announce its intention to conduct an auction on a particular date or over the course of a particular period of time. The FAA will also announce its proposed auction procedures and solicit comments on those procedures. The FAA will consider the comments that it receives and then publish the final auction procedures. Any interested party will have an avenue to protest the procedures up until the date of the auction, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40110(d)(4) and 14 CFR Part 17. The individual and non-airline organizational commenters express nearly universal support for the proposed limit on scheduled operations at EWR, primarily because they view it as an alternative to the delay reduction anticipated from New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia airspace redesign. The airspace redesign project to which they refer is an initiative that is independent of this temporary limitation on flights at EWR, and it will reduce congestion-related delay in that region over the long term. The FAA will implement elements of the airspace redesign over five years, and as a result, the full benefit of the redesign will be realized in stages. By contrast, this Order will provide temporary relief from the heightened delays that the region would experience as early as this summer if carriers were permitted to operate the schedules that they proposed. The FAA does not intend this Order to serve as a long-term solution to congestion-related delay at and around EWR. *Accordingly,* with respect to scheduled flight operations at EWR, it is ordered that: 1. This Order assigns operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at EWR during the affected hours to the U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier identified in the appendix to this Order. The FAA will not assign operating authority under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and FAA operating authority under 14 CFR Part 121, 129, or 135. This Order applies to the following: a. All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled operations at EWR as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such a carrier, and any air carrier or foreign-flag carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such a carrier. b. All U.S. air carriers or foreign air carriers initiating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to EWR while this Order is in effect. c. The Chief Counsel of the FAA, in consultation with the Vice President, System Operations Services, is the final decision-maker for determinations under this Order. 2. This Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at EWR from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday through Saturday. 3. This Order takes effect at 6 a.m., Eastern Time, on June 20, 2008, and expires at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on October 24, 2009. 4. Under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103 and 40113, we hereby order that: a. No U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier initiating or conducting scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service at EWR may conduct such operations without an Operating Authorization assigned by the FAA. b. Except as provided in the appendix to this Order, scheduled U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier arrivals and departures will not exceed 81 per hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time. c. The Administrator may change the limits if he determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays. 5. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization. 6. A carrier holding an Operating Authorization may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph seven, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any scheduled arrival or departure that is not listed in the appendix to this Order. All requests to move an allocated Operating Authorization must be submitted to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile

(202)267-7277 or e-mail *7-AWA-Slotadmin@faa.gov,* and must come from a designated representative of the carrier. If the FAA cannot approve a carrier's request to move a scheduled arrival or departure, the carrier may then apply for a trade in accordance with paragraph seven. 7. A carrier may lease or trade an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration and for a period that does not exceed the duration of this Order. A carrier may not lease an Operating Authorization to another carrier unless it has actually used the authorization to conduct flights to or from Newark at least 80% of the time over the preceding 90-day period. The FAA may waive the 90-day usage requirement of the Operating Authorization if the transferring carrier can demonstrate that it has operated the flight that corresponds to the Operating Authorization at least 80% of the time over the 90 days preceding the proposed transfer of the Operating Authorization. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile

(202)267-7277 or e-mail *7-AWA-Slotadmin@faa.gov,* and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. The FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to five business days after the actual operation, but only to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation. 8. A carrier may not buy, sell, trade, or transfer an Operating Authorization, except as described in paragraph seven. 9. Historical rights to Operating Authorizations and withdrawal of those rights due to insufficient usage will be determined on a seasonal basis and in accordance with the schedule approved by the FAA prior to the commencement of the applicable season. a. For each day of the week that the FAA has approved an operating schedule, any Operating Authorization not used at least 80% of the time over the period authorized by the FAA under this paragraph will be withdrawn by the FAA for the next applicable season except: i. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by a carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January. ii. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80% usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more. b. Each carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier and for each Operating Authorization. These reports must include: i. The dates within each applicable season on which it intends to start and to cease scheduled operations. A. For the Summer 2008 scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than June 20, 2008. B. For the Winter 2008/2009 scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than August 15, 2008. C. For the Summer 2009 scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than January 15, 2009. ii. The completed operations for each day of the applicable scheduling season: A. Via an interim report filed no later than September 1 for the Summer scheduling season; B. Via an interim report filed no later than January 15 for the Winter scheduling season. iii. A final report of the completed operations for each day of the scheduling season within 30 days after the last day of the applicable scheduling season. 10. In the event that a carrier surrenders to the FAA any Operating Authorization assigned to it under this Order or if there are unallocated Operating Authorizations, the FAA will determine whether the unallocated Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. The FAA may temporarily allocate an Operating Authorization if it determines that such allocation will not increase congestion at the airport. Such temporary allocations will not be entitled to historical status for the next applicable scheduling season under paragraph 9. 11. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the carrier from which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to operate scheduled service at EWR. 12. The FAA will enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). A carrier that is not a small business as defined in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632, will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. A carrier that is a small business as defined in the Small Business Act will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any air carrier from violating the terms of this Order. 13. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2008. Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EN21MY08.000 EN21MY08.001 EN21MY08.002 EN21MY08.003 EN21MY08.004 EN21MY08.005 EN21MY08.006 EN21MY08.007 EN21MY08.008 EN21MY08.009 EN21MY08.010 [FR Doc. 08-1278 Filed 5-16-08; 12:00 pm]

Connectionstraces to 121

Traces to 121 documents

U.S. Code