Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment

109,314 words·~497 min read·/register/2008/06/17/08-1365

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

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Parts 223, 228, 261, 292, and 293 Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment—Locatable Minerals Operations AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Forest Service published in the **Federal Register** a proposed rule to revise the regulations for locatable minerals operations conducted on National Forest System lands. The proposed rule considered impacts to small entities under Executive Order 13272 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

However, the proposed rule did not make available nor seek comment on the small entities flexibility assessment. This notice allows for review and seeks comment on the flexibility assessment. DATES: Comments must be received, in writing, on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Service, USDA, Attn: Director, Minerals and Geology Management

(MGM)Staff, (2810), Mail Stop 1126, Washington, DC 20250-1125; by electronic mail to *36cfr228a@fs.fed.us* ; by fax to

(703)605-1575. If comments are sent by electronic mail or by fax, the public is requested not to send duplicate written comments via regular mail. The public may inspect comments received on the proposed rule in the Office of the Director, MGM Staff, 5th Floor, Rosslyn Plaza Central, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia, on business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call ahead at

(703)605-4646 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Doran, Minerals and Geology Management Staff,

(208)373-4132. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The assessment follows. Description of Small Entities Affected The proposed rule (73 FR 15694, Mar. 25, 2008) would directly affect all exploration and mining companies. There are currently approximately 1,800 exploration and mining companies operating on the National Forests. Seventy-five percent of these companies are considered small business with less than 500 employees. The size of these 1,260 small businesses range from one person to 499 employees. Total production ranges from zero production for exploration companies to few thousand dollars per year for very small mining to several million dollars per year for the larger mining companies. Most mining companies require at least 20-25 percent profit to survive mining's volatile market. Economic Impacts on Small Entities Increased operating costs from the proposed rule to small exploration and mining companies is expected to be insignificant since the small entities are already working under the proposed rule through current direction and policy spelled out in the Forest Service manual and handbooks. The proposed rule codifies much of the existing direction and policy. The most direct costs from the proposed regulations will come from how much time and money is spent on filling out and filing the required notice of intent, cessation of operations, or an operating plan. Table #1 records the 2007 annualized burden costs for an operator. The United States Geological Survey

(USGS)published earnings information pertaining to locatable mineral operations. That information can be found in the *Mineral Commodity Summaries 2007* . The USGS disclosed that the estimated “Average weekly earnings of production workers” for metal mining in 2006 was $979. Based on 40 hours a week and on an 8-hour workday, the average hourly salary in the locatable mineral arena is about $24.48. This rate is reflected in Table #1. Table #1.—2007 Annualized Burden Costs Information collection Number of respondents Response frequency Hour burden per collection Total burden hours Annualized costs @$24.48/hour Cost per respondent Plan of operations 319 1 12 3,828 $93,709 $293.76 Notice of intent 1,396 1 2 2,792 20,318 14.55 Cessation of operations 3 1 1 3 73 24.33 Each year the Forest Service surveys the regional offices to get an estimate of how many Plans of Operations and Notices of Intents were received. The latest figures indicate that 320 Plans of Operations and 415 Notices of Intent were received in 2007. All of these plans and notices came from small entities. Total estimated 2007 costs for small entities to comply with the information collection was $114,100. The estimated additional information collection costs for the proposed bonded notice are reflected in Table #2. Table #2.—2007 Annualized Burden Costs for a Bonded Notice (Proposed Rule) Information collection Number of respondents Response frequency Hour burden per collection Total burden hours Annualized costs @$24.48/hour Cost per respondent Bonded notice 100 1 6 600 $14,688 $146.88 The field units provided an initial estimate of 100 exploration and mining companies that would use the bonded notice instead of a plan of operation. A six hour burden per bonded notice was assumed giving a total of 600 burden hours. Annualized costs to the small entities would be $14,688. The economic impact on an individual respondent would be $114,100 + $14,688 = $128,788 divided by 1,260 small businesses = $102.21. Conclusion The comments will be addressed in the final rule for locatable minerals operations. The Forest Service has determined that the proposed rule will have an impact on a substantial number of small businesses. However, the economic impact of the proposed rule will not be significant. Under the proposed rule small entities will have the option of filing a bonded notice rather than a plan of operation for short-term, low impact exploration proposals rather the longer plan of operations requiring more analysis and a longer approval time. The Forest Service expects the major impact from the proposed rule to be a reduction of paperwork burden for the small entities which should be beneficial to small exploration and mining companies. The Forest Service hereby certifies that the proposed rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by SBRFEA. Dated: June 9, 2008. Charles L. Myers, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. [FR Doc. E8-13446 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 501 [GSAR Case 2006-G502; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 5] RIN 3090-AI53 General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2006-G502;Rewrite of GSAR Part 501; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation System AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration

(GSA)is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)to update the text addressing the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation System. This rule is a result of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual

(GSAM)Rewrite Initiative undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, will publish it in the **Federal Register** . This rule covers the rewrite of GSAR Part 501, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation System. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 18, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2006-G502 by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: *http://www.regulations.gov* .Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2006-G502” under the heading “Comment or Submission”. Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2006-G502. Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2006-G502” on your attached document. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions* : Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2006-G502 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact Ms. Beverly Cromer at

(202)501-1448, or by e-mail at *Beverly.Cromer@gsa.gov* . For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405,

(202)501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2006-G502. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background GSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANPR)with request for comments in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 7910, February 15, 2006, because GSA was beginning the review and update of the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). No public comments were received on GSAR Part 501. This GSAR rewrite will— • Change “you” to “contracting officer”. • Maintain consistency with the FAR but eliminate duplication. • Revise GSAR sections that are out-of-date, or which imposed inappropriate burdens on the Government or contractors, especially small businesses. • Streamline and simplify wherever possible. In addition, GSA has recently reorganized into two, rather than three services. Therefore, the reorganization of the Federal Supply Service

(FSS)and the Federal Technology Service

(FTS)into the Federal Acquisition Service

(FAS)was considered in the rewrite initiative. This proposed rule contains the revisions made to Part 501, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation System. Section 501.101 is revised to explain that the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)implements or supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)and to change “you” to “contracting officer”. Section 501.103, Authority, is updated to add a reference to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 421. Section 501.104 is revised to address the type of acquisitions that the GSAR applies to and to clarify the GSAR/FAR relationship. Subsection 501.105-1 is revised to state where the GSAM can be found online and to clarify the difference between the GSAR and the GSAM. Subpart 501.106, is revised to provide updated OMB approval numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act. New Section 501.107 is added to provide procedures regarding certification requirements in accordance with Section 29 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 425). It disallows any new requirements for a certification by a contractor or offeror in the GSAR unless certain criteria are met. Section 501.402 is deleted because it repeats information contained in the FAR and is therefore unnecessary. Sections 501.403 and 501.404 contain minor editorial changes to make language clearer. Subsection 501.404-71, Deviations to the nonregulatory GSAM, is revised to remove the language from the GSAR and place it in the GSAM because it is procedural, not regulatory. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because no new requirements are being placed on the vendor community. No comments on this issue were received from small business concerns or other interested parties. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the GSAM do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 501 Government procurement. Dated: June 9, 2008 Al Matera, Director,Office of Acquisition Policy. Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR part 501 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 501 revised to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c). PART 501—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM 2. Revise section 501.101 to read as follows: 501.101 Purpose. The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation

(GSAR)implements and supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). It contains agency acquisition policies and practices, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that control the relationship between GSA and contractors, (including prospective contractors). 3. Revise section 501.103 to read as follows: 501.103 Authority. GSA’s Senior Procurement Executive

(SPE)issues the GSAR under the general authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. Additional authority is found in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, at 41 U.S.C. 421. 4. Amend section 501.104 by revising paragraphs

(a)and

(d)to read as follows: 501.104 Applicability.

(a)General. The GSAR applies to all acquisitions covered by the FAR. In general, this means supplies and services, including construction. In addition, the GSAR covers other actions, such as leasing in Part 570.

(d)GSAR/FAR Relationship. The FAR is the primary document. The GSAR only implements and supplements the FAR. The GSAR may deviate from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), if authorized. 5. Amend section 501.105-1 by revising paragraph

(c)and removing paragraph

(d)to read as follows: 501.105-1 Publication and code arrangement.

(c)GSA Acquisition Manual, which can be found at *http://www.acquisition.gov/gsam* . The GSAR is found in the gray shaded areas within the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual

(GSAM)text on the GSAM website. 501.105-3 [Amended] 6. Amend section 501.105-3 by removing “in CFR” and adding “in the CFR” in its place. 501.106 [Amended] 7. Amend section 501.106 by removing GSAR Reference “511.104-70” with OMB Control Number “3090-0203”; adding GSAR Reference “514.201-1” with OMB Control Number “3090-0163”, and adding GSAR Reference “515.204-1” with OMB Control Number “3090-0163”; removing GSAR Reference “523.370” with OMB Control Number “3090-0205”, removing GSAR Reference “537.110(a) ” with OMB Control Number “3090-0006”, and removing GSAR Reference “552.232-72” with OMB Control Number “3090-0205”; and adding GSAR Reference “552.238-75” with OMB Control Number “3090-0235”. 8. Add section 501.107 to read as follows: 501.107 Certifications.

(a)In accordance with Section 29 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 425), a new requirement for a certification by a contractor or offeror may not be included in the GSAR unless—

(1)The certification requirement is specifically imposed by statute; or

(2)The SPE provides written justification to the Administrator for the certification, and the Administrator approves, in writing, the inclusion of the certification.

(b)Generally, no additional certification requirement should be contained in solicitations or clauses. However, in those rare instances where the contracting officer must request certification of certain types of information, approval from the SPE is required. 501.402 [Removed] 9. Remove section 501.402. 10. Revise section 501.403 to read as follows: 501.403 Individual deviations.

(a)An individual deviation affects only one contract action.

(1)The HCA must approve an individual deviation from the FAR. The authority to grant an individual deviation from the FAR may not be re-delegated.

(2)An individual deviation from the GSAR must be approved by the HCA. The authority to grant an individual deviation from the GSAR may be re-delegated to the Contracting Director.

(b)If GSA delegates authority to another agency and requires compliance with the GSAR as a condition of the delegation, the Contracting Director in the agency receiving the delegation may approve individual deviations from the GSAR unless the agency head receiving the delegation designates another official.

(c)A copy of the deviation must be provided to GSA’s SPE. 11. Revise section 501.404 to read as follows: 501.404 Class deviations.

(a)A class deviation affects more than one contract action. A deviation for any solicitation that will result in multiple awards, or any solicitation under the Multiple Award Federal Supply Schedule program is considered to be a class deviation, as more than one contract action is affected. Each award under such a solicitation is considered an individual contract action.

(1)A proposed class deviation from the FAR must be forwarded by the cognizant HCA to GSA’s SPE for approval. Prior to approving a class deviation from the FAR, the SPE will consult with the Chairman of the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council

(CAAC)in accordance with FAR 1.404(a)(1).

(2)A proposed class deviation from the GSAR must be forwarded by the cognizant HCA to GSA’s SPE for approval.

(3)When an HCA knows that a proposed class deviation will be required on a permanent basis, the HCA should propose or recommend an appropriate FAR or GSAR revision.

(b)If GSA delegates authority to another agency and requires compliance with the GSAR as a condition of the delegation, the HCA in the agency receiving the delegation may approve class deviations from the GSAR unless the agency head receiving the delegation designates another official. A copy of the class deviation must be provided to GSA’s SPE.

(c)A request for class deviations must fully describe the need for and the nature of the deviation and be supported by appropriate documentation.

(d)Class deviations from the GSAR—

(1)Expire in 12 months, if not extended; and

(2)May be rescinded earlier by GSA’s SPE or by officials designated under paragraph

(a)of this section without prejudice to any action taken previously. 501.404-71 [Removed] 12. Remove section 501.404-71. [FR Doc. E8-13593 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 531 [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0115] Exemptions From Average Fuel Economy Standards; Passenger Automobile Average Fuel Economy Standards AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed decision to grant exemption. SUMMARY: This proposed decision responds to a petition filed by Mosler Automotive (Mosler) requesting that it be exempted from the generally applicable corporate average fuel economy

(CAFE)standard of 27.5 miles per gallon

(mpg)for model years 2008, 2009 and 2010, and that, for Mosler, lower alternative standards be established. In this document, NHTSA proposes that the requested exemption be granted to Mosler and that an alternative standard of 22.1 mpg be established for MYs 2008 through 2010. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* The Docket Management Facility is on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading at the end of this notice. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ken Katz, Lead Engineer, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, at

(202)366-0846, facsimile

(202)493-2290, electronic mail *kkatz@nhtsa.dot.gov.* For legal issues, contact Rebecca Yoon of the Office of the Chief Counsel, at

(202)366-2992. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Background Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(d), NHTSA may exempt a low volume manufacturer of passenger automobiles from the generally applicable average fuel economy standards if NHTSA concludes that those standards are more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel economy for that manufacturer and if NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer at its maximum feasible level. Under the statute, a low volume manufacturer is one that manufactured (worldwide) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year before the model year for which the exemption is sought (the affected model year) and that will manufacture fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the affected model year. In determining the maximum feasible average fuel economy, the agency is required under 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) to consider:

(1)Technological feasibility,

(2)Economic practicability,

(3)The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and

(4)The need of the United States to conserve energy. The statute permits NHTSA to establish alternative average fuel economy standards applicable to exempted low volume manufacturers in one of three ways:

(1)A separate standard for each exempted manufacturer;

(2)a separate average fuel economy standard applicable to each class of exempted automobiles (classes would be based on design, size, price, or other factors); or

(3)a single standard for all exempted manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2)). Background Information on Mosler Mosler is a U.S. company, organized as a Florida corporation, formed in 1987 and owned by a single American shareholder. The company headquarters are in Riveria Beach, Florida. There is an engineering/assembly facility in Norfolk, England. The company has 25 U.S. employees. Race car development was initiated by the company in 1998, and the first street vehicle for the U.S. market was produced in 2004. Subsequently, U.S. street production was suspended because of issues with compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* . The petitioner stated that it manufactured 15 vehicles in 2004. The petitioner estimates that it will produce 40 vehicles in 2008, 50 vehicles in 2009, and 60 vehicles in 2010. 1 1 As explained later in this notice, Mosler's production of any vehicles is contingent upon the grant of a pending petition for exemption under 49 CFR part 555. The Mosler Petition NHTSA's regulations on low volume exemptions from CAFE standards state that petitions for exemption must be submitted “not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year, unless good cause for later submission is shown” (49 CFR 525.6(b)). NHTSA received the petition from Mosler on June 19, 2007, seeking exemption from the passenger automobile fuel economy standards for MYs 2008 through 2010. This petition was filed less than 24 months before the beginning of MYs 2008 and 2009, and was therefore untimely under 49 CFR part 526 for those model years. Mosler indicated that it only decided to resume production for the U.S. market after it filed a petition for an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements in January 2007. The decision to file for this exemption was only made after NHTSA granted similar exemptions in September 2006. Under the circumstances, NHTSA concludes that Mosler took reasonable measures to submit a petition in as timely a manner as possible. The agency notes that Mosler's ability to enter the U.S. market apparently hinges on a favorable decision regarding its petition for an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements. Mosler has filed this petition while awaiting a decision on the other petition. Therefore, the agency has determined that good cause exists for the late submission of the petition. This is consistent with previous determinations made by the agency with regard to the timeliness of petitions submitted by Spyker Automobielen B.V. ( *see* 71 FR 49407; August 23, 2006; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25593) and DeTomaso Automobiles, Ltd. ( *see* 64 FR 73476; December 30, 1999; Docket No. NHTSA-99-6676). Methodology Used To Project Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy Level for Mosler Baseline Fuel Economy To project the level of fuel economy which could be achieved by Mosler in the 2008 through 2010 model years, NHTSA considered whether there were technical or other improvements that would be feasible for these vehicles, and whether the company currently plans to incorporate such improvements in the vehicles. The agency reviewed the technological feasibility of any changes and their economic practicability. NHTSA interprets “technological feasibility” as meaning technology which would be available to Mosler for use on its 2008 through 2010 model year automobiles. The areas examined for technologically feasible improvements were weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, engine improvements, drive line improvements, and reduced rolling resistance. The agency interprets “economic practicability” for the purpose of petitions filed under 49 CFR part 525 as meaning the financial capability of the manufacturer to improve its average fuel economy by incorporating technologically feasible changes to its 2008 through 2010 model year automobiles. In assuming that capability, the agency has always considered market demand as an implicit part of the concept of economic practicability. In accordance with the concerns of economic practicability, NHTSA has considered only those potential fuel economy improvements that would be compatible with the basic design concepts of Mosler's automobiles. Since NHTSA assumes that Mosler will continue to build high performance cars, design changes that would remove items traditionally offered on these types of vehicles were not considered. Such changes to the basic design would be economically impracticable since they could significantly reduce the demand for these automobiles, thereby reducing sales and causing significant economic injury to the low volume manufacturer. Technology for Fuel Economy Improvement Mosler states that the requested fuel economy value of 22.1 mpg 2 represents the best possible CAFE that Mosler can achieve for the 2008 through 2010 model years. Mosler argues that, as racing-derived sports cars, its vehicles by their nature cannot maximize fuel economy at the expense of speed or power. Also, Mosler lags in being able to apply the latest developments in fuel efficiency technology because suppliers generally provide components and technology to small manufacturers only after supplying large manufacturers. Mosler argues that it cannot achieve substantial fuel economy gains from changes to its chassis or body design. 2 This number is .05 mpg less than forecasted in order to allow for potential development and production variation. NHTSA also notes that fuel economy compliance is determined in tenths of mpg. Mosler is producing innovative sports cars using state-of-the-art design. Mosler's current vehicle, the MT900, is ultra lightweight. The double-wishbone suspension is unique. For its primary structure, the MT900 utilizes a high tech, high strength, lightweight advanced composite over an aluminum honeycomb monocoque chassis. The MT900 is aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient of 0.34cd. The weight of the vehicle is only 2440 pounds. Since the chassis/body configuration is small, aerodynamic, and lightweight, further fuel economy improvements through changes to the chassis and body appear to be limited. Mosler also stated that it is unable to change the supplier of the vehicle's Corvette V8 engine. Mosler stated that is has revised the gear ratios in the transmission so that the average operating engine RPM is 15% lower, improving gas mileage compared to the 2004 model year vehicle. Mosler also stated that the fuel economy label values of the vehicle (15 mpg city and 22 mpg highway) are equal to or better than those of similar vehicles, e.g., Cadillac XLR (15/22), MB 550 SL (14/22), Lamborghini Gallardo (12/18), Ferrari F 430 (13/17), and Aston Martin V8 (13/19). Model Mix Mosler has no opportunity to improve its fuel economy by changing its fleet mix since it has stated that it will only export one model to the U.S. during the years for which this petition was filed. Effect of Other Motor Vehicle Standards of the Government The need to comply with the FMVSS and other regulations are anticipated to have an adverse effect on the fuel economy of Mosler's vehicles and on Mosler's ability to improve its fuel economy. These standards include FMVSS No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection,* and FMVSS No. 214, *Side Impact Protection,* and upcoming amendments to FMVSS No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance* . These standards may reduce achievable fuel economy values, since they result in increased vehicle weight. Mosler's projection reflected the impact of these standards. Mosler is a small company and engineering resources are limited, limiting the amount of resources Mosler can apply to comply with both the mandatory standards and the fuel economy requirements. Additionally, as a small volume manufacturer, the more stringent California evaporative emission standards and the U.S. EPA Tier 2-LEV II exhaust standards will be applicable. A portion of Mosler's limited engineering resources will have to be expended to comply with these more stringent standards. The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy The agency recognizes there is a need to conserve energy, to promote energy security, and to improve balance of payments. However, as stated above, NHTSA has tentatively determined that it is not technologically feasible or economically practicable for Mosler to achieve an average fuel economy in model years 2008 through 2010 above the levels set forth in this proposed decision. Granting an exemption to Mosler and setting an alternative standard at that level would not result in an increase in fuel consumption since Mosler cannot attain the generally applicable standards. Nevertheless, the agency estimates that the additional fuel that could be consumed by operating the MYs 2008 through 2010 fleets of Mosler's vehicles for the expected lifetime of these vehicles at the CAFE of 22.1 mpg (compared to a 27.5 mpg fleet) is 10,315 barrels of fuel, or about 1.09 barrels per day for the entire fleet of Mosler vehicles. 3 This is insignificant compared to the fuel used daily by the entire motor vehicle fleet, which amounts to over 9 million barrels per day for motor vehicles in the United States (USDOE/EIA, Monthly Energy Review, September 2007, Table 5.13c). 4 3 To estimate the additional fuel that could be consumed, NHTSA uses estimates of the average number of vehicles miles traveled

(VMT)for the entire vehicle fleet over the lifetime of the vehicle (26 years). We then divide this figure by 22.1 mpg and 27.5 mpg, and the difference between the two amounts is the additional fuel usage per vehicle over its lifetime at the reduced CAFE standard. The total additional fuel usage figure for the Mosler fleet is determined by multiplying this figure by the estimated sales figures provided by Mosler. It is likely that this is actually an overestimate of the additional fuel that will be consumed, as these vehicles will likely have a VMT below the fleet average. 4 *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/* Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy for Mosler The agency has tentatively concluded that it would not be technologically feasible and economically practicable for Mosler to improve the fuel economy of its MY 2008 through 2010 fleets above an average of 22.1 mpg for those years, that Federal automobile standards would not adversely affect achievable fuel economy beyond the amount already factored into Mosler's projections, and that the national effort to conserve energy would not be affected by granting the requested exemption and establishing an alternative standard. Consequently, the agency tentatively concludes that the maximum feasible average fuel economy for Mosler should be 22.1 mpg for MYs 2008, 2009 and 2010. As discussed above, 49 U.S.C. chapter 329 permits NHTSA to establish an alternative average fuel economy standard applicable to exempted manufacturers in one of three ways:

(1)A separate standard may be established for each exempted manufacturer;

(2)classes, based on design, size, price or other factors, may be established for the automobiles of exempted manufacturers, with a separate fuel economy standard applicable to each class; or

(3)a single standard may be established for all exempted manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 32902(d)(2)). The agency tentatively concludes that it would be appropriate to establish a separate standard for Mosler. While the agency has the option of establishing a single standard for all exempted manufacturers, we note that previous exemptions have been granted to manufacturers of high-performance cars, luxury cars and specialized vehicles for the transportation of persons with physical impairments. The agency's experience in establishing exemptions indicates that selection of a single standard would be inappropriate. Such a standard would have little impact on energy conservation while doing little to ease the burdens faced by small manufacturers which cannot meet the fuel economy standards applicable to larger manufacturers. Similarly, the agency is not proposing to establish alternative standards based on different classes of vehicles. Again, the agency's experience has been that vehicles manufactured by low volume manufacturers may differ widely in size, price, design or other factors. Based on the information available at this time, we do not believe it would be appropriate to establish class-based alternative standards. Regulatory Impact Analyses NHTSA has analyzed this decision and determined that neither Executive Order 12866 nor the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures apply. Under Executive Order 12866, the decision would not establish a rule, which is defined in the Executive Order as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect.” The decision is not generally applicable, since it would apply only to Mosler, as discussed in this notice. Under DOT regulatory policies and procedures, the decision would not be a “significant regulation.” If Departmental policies and procedures were applicable, the agency would have determined that this decision is not significant. The principal impact of the decision to exempt Mosler from the 27.5 mpg standard is that they would not be required to pay civil penalties if its maximum feasible average fuel economy (22.1 mpg) were achieved. Since this tentative decision sets an alternative standard at the level determined to be the maximum feasible levels for Mosler for MYs 2008 through 2010, no fuel would be saved by establishing a higher alternative standard. NHTSA found in the Section on “The Need of the United States To Conserve Energy” that because of the small size of the Mosler fleet, that incremental usage of gasoline by Mosler's customers would not affect the United States' need to conserve gasoline. Mosler is planning to produce 150 vehicles for the U.S. market by MY 2010. Given that over 7,602,000 passenger cars were produced for sale in the U.S. market in MY 2006, 5 Mosler's production of these vehicles would amount to .001% of the U.S. market. Thus, there are not any impacts for the public at large. 5 “Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, March 2007” (Docket NHTSA-2007-28040-1). The agency has also considered the environmental implications of this decision in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and determined that it would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Regardless of the fuel economy of the exempted vehicles, they must pass EPA emissions standards which measure the amount of regulated pollutant emissions per mile traveled. The incremental carbon dioxide emissions that might result from the proposed alternative standards would have a de minimus effect on air quality, due to the extremely small size of the Mosler vehicle fleet and the difference in miles per gallon required by the proposed alternative standards. Further, since the exempted passenger automobiles cannot achieve better fuel economy than provided, the decision does not affect the amount of fuel used or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. Privacy Act Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or at *http://www.regulations.gov* . List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 531 Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles. In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 531 is proposed to be amended to read as follows: PART 531—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 531.5 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows: § 531.5 Fuel economy standards.

(b)* * *

(16)Mosler Automotive. Average Fuel Economy Standard Model year Miles per gallon 2008 22.1 2009 22.1 2010 22.1 Issued on: June 10, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8-13505 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 73 117 Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 11, 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;

(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: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(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

(MGC)Branch provides these services under the authority of 7 CFR part 54—Meats, Prepared Meats, and Meat Products (Grading, Certification, and Standards). The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)will collect information using forms LS-313 and LS-315. The Quality Systems Verification Programs are a collection of voluntary, audit-based, user-fee programs that allow applicants to have program documentation and program processes assessed by AMS auditors and other USDA officials. The QSVP are user-fees based on the approved hourly rate established under 7 CFR part 62. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information AMS collects on LS-313, “Application for Service,” and LS-315, “Application for Commitment Grading or Certification Service” will enable the Agency to identify the responsible authorities in establishments requesting services and to initiate billing and collection accounts. A signed LS-313 or LS-315 form serves as a legal agreement between USDA users of the services, assures payment for services provided, and constitutes authorization for any employee of AMS to enter the establishment for the purpose of performing official functions under the regulations. Without a properly signed and approved form, AMS officials would not have the authority to enter the premises to provide grading and/or certification services. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 311. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,352. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13546 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 11, 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)720-8681. 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. Rural Business-Cooperative Service *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1980-E, Business and Industry Loan Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0014. *Summary of Collection:* Section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Con Act), legislated in 1972 the Business and Industry (B&I) program. The purpose of the program is to improve, develop, or finance businesses, industries, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution abatement and control. This purpose is achieved through bolstering the existing private credit structure by making direct loans, thereby providing lasting community benefits. The B&I program is administered by the Agency through Rural Development State and sub-State Offices serving the State. 7 CFR part 1980-E, in conjunction with 7 CFR part 1942-A, and other regulations, is currently used only for making B&I Direct Loans. 7 CFR part 1951-E is used for servicing B&I Direct and Community Facility loans. All reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates for making and servicing B&I Guaranteed Loans have been moved to the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program regulations, 7 CFR parts 4279-A and B and 4287-B. Consequently, only a fraction of the total reporting and recordkeeping burden for making and servicing B&I Direct Loans is reflected in this document. *Need and Use of the Information:* RD will collect the minimum information needed from loan applicants and commercial lenders to make determinations regarding program eligibility, the current financial condition of a business and loan security as required by the Con Act. The majority of the information is collected only once and the agency monitors the progress of the business through the analysis of annual borrower financial statements and visits to the borrower. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 152. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 835. Rural Business Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1951-R, Rural Development Loan Servicing. *OMB Control Number:* 0570-0015. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Development

(RD)Loan Servicing was legislated in 1985 under Section 1323 of the Food and Security Act of 1985. This action is needed to implement the provision of Section 407 of the Health and Human Services Act of 1986, which amended Section 1323 of the Food and Security Act of 1985. 7 CFR part 1951, Subpart R contains regulations for servicing and liquidating existing loans previously approved and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)under 45 CFR part 1076 and transferred from HHS to the Department of Agriculture. This subpart contains regulations for servicing and liquidating loans made by RD, successor to the Farmers Home Administration under the Intermediary Relending Program to eligible intermediaries and applies to ultimate recipients and other involved parties. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Intermediary will provide RD information from, i.e. assets and liabilities, income statement and a summary of its lending and guarantee program. The required financial information provided by the Intermediary is vital to RD for the Agency to make sound credit and financial analysis decisions and monitor the program. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 420. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; quarterly; semi-annually; annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 11,235. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13548 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 12, 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. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* National Universal Product Code

(NUPC)Database. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS)is authorized by the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004-S.2507 to establish a “National Universal Product Code

(NUPC)database for use by all State agencies carrying out the program.” The purpose of this new data collection process is to reduce the current burden on both manufacturers and WIC State agencies. In response to this mandate, FNS has developed a NUPC database to serve as an electronic national repository of Women, Infant, and Children

(WIC)eligible foods that have been authorized or approved by FNS and/or WIC State agencies. *Need and Use of the Information:* The NUPC database will help streamline the handling of product information for State agencies, retailer and manufacturers; allow more consistent oversight of WIC approved items; reduce the electronic processing needed by State agencies; standardize the way retailers obtain WIC UPC information; and make it easier for State agencies to begin using EBT processing by reducing the need to visit food retailer locations to gather UPC and other product information. The NUPC database will allow manufacturers to submit product details to the central database for consideration by participating WIC State agencies when they approve products for use. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local, or Tribal Government; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1,040. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,938. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13610 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0043; FV08-996-1 N] Peanut Standards Board AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for nominations. SUMMARY: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Peanut Standards Board (Board) for the purpose of advising the Secretary on quality and handling standards for domestically produced and imported peanuts. The initial Board was appointed by the Secretary and announced on December 5, 2002. USDA seeks nominations for individuals to be considered for selection as Board members for terms of office ending June 30, 2011. Selected nominees sought by this action would replace those six producer and industry representatives who are currently serving for the term of office that ends June 30, 2008. The Board consists of 18 members representing producers and industry representatives. DATES: Written nominations must be received on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Dawana J. Clark, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737: *Telephone:*

(301)734-5243; *Fax:*

(301)734-5275; *E-mail: Dawana.Clark@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1308 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Peanut Standards Board (Board) for the purpose of advising the Secretary regarding the establishment of quality and handling standards for all domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States. The Farm Bill requires the Secretary to consult with the Board before the Secretary establishes or changes quality and handling standards for peanuts. The Farm Bill provides that the Board consist of 18 members, with three producers and three industry representatives from the States specified in each of the following producing regions:

(a)Southeast (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida);

(b)Southwest (Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico); and

(c)Virginia/Carolina (Virginia and North Carolina). For the initial appointments, the Farm Bill required the Secretary to stagger the terms of the members so that:

(a)One producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a one-year term;

(b)one producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a two-year term; and

(c)one producer member and peanut industry member from each peanut producing region serves a three-year term. The term “peanut industry representatives” includes, but is not limited to, representatives of shellers, manufacturers, buying points, marketing associations and marketing cooperatives. The Farm Bill exempted the appointment of the Board from the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The initial Board was appointed by the Secretary and announced on December 5, 2002. USDA invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals for membership on the Board. Nominees sought by this action would replace one producer and one industry member from each peanut producing region who served for the term of office that ends June 30, 2008. New members would serve for a 3-year term of office ending June 30, 2011. Nominees should complete a Peanut Standards Board Background Information form and submit it to Mrs. Clark. Copies of this form may be obtained at the internet site: *www.ams.usda.gov/fv* (below the “See Also” section, select “More” then select “Peanut Quality Standards” and below “News” select Background Information Form), or from Mrs. Clark. USDA seeks a diverse group of members representing the peanut industry. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the Board in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the Board have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups within the peanut industry, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated abilities to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and limited resource agriculture producers. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7958. Dated: June 11, 2008. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E8-13581 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Deep Seabed Mining Regulations for Exploration Licenses. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0145. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 60. *Number of Respondents:* 1. *Average Hours per Response:* Annual reports, 20 hours; license extensions, 30 hours (annualized to 10 hours). *Needs and Uses:* The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act requires applicants for an exploration license to submit information for NOAA to make a determination as to the applicants' eligibility to meet the provisions of the legislation. Information will be used to determine the financial, environmental and technological eligibility of the applicant to meet the requirements of the Act to conduct exploration activities. The licensees are required to submit annual reports, as well as license extensions when applicable. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually and on occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: June 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13439 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Action Affecting Export Privileges; Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd.; Hooshang Seddigh; Hamid Shakeri Hendi; Hossein Jahan Peyma; Iran Air; Ankair In the Matter of: Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd., 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ; Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ; Hamid Shakeri Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special Road, Tehran, Iran; Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Makran Cross, Heravi Square, Moghan Ave, Pasdaran Cross, Tehran, Iran; Iran Air, Second Floor, No. 23 Nafisi Avenue, Ekbatan, Tehran, Iran; Ankair, Yesilkoy Asfalti Istanbul No. 13/4, Florya, Istanbul, Turkey TR-34810; Respondents. Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 1 the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), has requested that I issue an Order temporarily denying, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges under the EAR of: 1 The EAR is currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2008). The EAR are issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (“EAA”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive presidential notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”). 1. Galaxy Aviation Trade Company LTD, 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ. 2. Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ. 3. Hamid Shakeri Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special Road, Tehran, Iran. 4. Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Markran Cross, Heravi Square, Moghan Ave, Pasdaran Cross, Tehran, Iran. 5. Iran Air, Second Floor, No. 23, Nafisi Avenue, Ekbatan, Tehran, Iran. BIS also has requested that I issue a non-standard Order temporarily denying, for a period of 180 days, certain export privileges under the EAR of: 6. Ankair, Yesilkoy Asfalti Istanbul No. 13/4, Florya, Istanbul, Turkey TR-34810. Specifically, with regard to Ankair, BIS has requested that I temporarily deny, for a period of 180 days, the export privileges of Ankair relating to a Boeing 747 that has the manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ (“the Boeing 747”). In its request, BIS has presented evidence that Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd. (“Galaxy”) is preparing to purchase immediately from Ankair, the Boeing 747, currently located in Turkey, for immediate re-export to Iran, and specifically to Iran Air in Tehran, Iran, without the U.S. Government authorization required by Section 746.7 of the EAR. Additional evidence provided through corporate registration information shows that Hooshang Seddigh is a director and principal shareholder of Galaxy. Hamid Shakeri Hendi also is a principal shareholder of Galaxy and has a listed address in the same building as Iran Air's headquarters in Tehran, Iran. Another Galaxy principal shareholder, Hossein Jahan Peyma, also lists a Tehran, Iran address. Open source information, including aviation Web sites, show the Boeing 747 at issue is registered in Turkey and evidence presented by OEE indicates that Galaxy is seeking to purchase the Boeing 747 from Ankair in the immediate future. I find that the evidence presented by BIS demonstrates that a violation of the Regulations is imminent in both time and degree of likelihood. As such, a TDO is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the Respondents in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with the public interest to preclude future violations of the EAR. Accordingly, I find that a TDO naming Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd., Hooshang Seddigh, Hamid Shakeri Hendi, Hossein Jahan Peyma, and Iran Air is necessary, in the public interest, to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. In addition, I find that a non-standard TDO naming Ankair is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR involving the Boeing 747. This Order is being issued on an *ex parte* basis without a hearing based upon BIS's showing of an imminent violation. *It is therefore ordered:* *First* , that, Galaxy Aviation Trade Company Ltd., 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ; Hooshang Seddigh, 15 Moreland Court, Lyndale Avenue, Finchley Road, London, UK, NW2 2PJ; Hamid Shakeri Hendi, 5th Floor, 23 Nafisi Avenue, Shahrak Ekbatan, Karaj Special Road, Tehran, Iran; Hossein Jahan Peyma, 2/1 Markran Cross, Heravi Square, Moghan Ave, Pasdaran Cross, Tehran, Iran; Iran Air, Second Floor, No. 23, Nafisi Avenue, Ekbatan, Tehran, Iran (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), or in any other activity subject to the EAR including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR. *Second* , that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of any Denied Person any item subject to the EAR; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by any Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby any Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from any Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from any Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by any Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by any Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. *Third* , that, Ankair, Yesilkoy Asfalti Istanbul No. 13/4, Florya, Istanbul, Turkey TR 34810, may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving the Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ) including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document involving Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ); B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ); C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ) *Fourth* , that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or re-export on behalf of Ankair the Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ); or B. Take any action to acquire from, lease, or otherwise facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from Ankair of the Boeing 747 (manufacturer serial number 24134, and current tail number TC-AKZ). *Fifth* , that after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to any of the Respondents by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order. *Sixth* , that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order. A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and shall be published in the **Federal Register** . This Order is effective upon issuance and shall remain in effect for 180 days. Entered this 6th day of June 2008. Darryl W. Jackson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-13571 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Multipurpose Application AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison,

(202)482-4896, *lhall@bis.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This collection is required in compliance with U.S. export regulations. The information furnished by U.S. exporters provides the basis for decisions to grant licenses for export, reexport, and classifications of commodities, goods and technologies that are controlled for reasons of national security and foreign policy. II. Method of Collection Submitted electronically and on paper. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0694-0088. *Form Number(s):* BIS-748P. *Type of Review:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20,489. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 to 90 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 15,359. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $103,747. IV. Request for Comments *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 shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 11, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13503 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 12th Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2312. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On December 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of the Twelfth Administrative Review* , 72 FR 69652 (December 10, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”) Since the *Preliminary Results* , the following events have occurred. On January 9, 2008, The Fresh Garlic Producers Association: Christopher Ranch L.L.C.; The Garlic Company; Valley Garlic; and Vessey and Company, Inc. (“Petitioners”), Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (“Dong Yun”), Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai LJ”), and Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Saturn”) submitted case briefs. After reviewing the case briefs, the Department instructed Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ to re-file their case briefs because they contained untimely new factual information. Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ filed the final versions of their redacted case briefs on January 16, 2008. Also on January 16, 2008, the Petitioners, Dong Yun, and Shanghai LJ submitted rebuttal briefs. On January 23, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this administrative review by 60 days. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review* , 73 FR 16640 (March 28, 2008). On April 10, 2008, the Department conducted a public hearing, and counsel for the Petitioners, Dong Yun, and Qingdao Saturn participated. Scope Of The Order The products covered by this Order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following:

(a)garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or

(b)garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the Order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is

(1)mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or

(2)specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to CBP to that effect. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“ *Final Decision Memo* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this administrative review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a copy of the *Final Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on our website at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Final Decision Memo* are identical in content. Changes Since The Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from parties regarding our *Preliminary Results* , we have made revisions to the margin calculations for Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ for the final results. For all changes to the calculations for Dong Yun and Shanghai LJ, see the *Final Decision Memo* and the company-specific analysis memoranda. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) provides that if an interested party:

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department assigned a rate based on the use of total adverse facts available (“AFA”) to the PRC-Wide Entity, including Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company (“Huaiyang Hongda”), and 19 other companies 1 , because they failed either to respond to the Department's two quantity and value questionnaires, or in the case of Huaiyang Hongda, to the Department's two supplemental questionnaires. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 69656-57. As no parties provided comments on these issues, we continue to find it appropriate to apply total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity, including Huaiyang Hongda, and the 19 other companies. 1 APS Qingdao; Fujian Meitan Import & Export Xiamen Corporation (“Fujian Meitan”); Hongchang Fruits & Vegetable Products (“Hongchang”); Jining Haijiang Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jining Haijiang”); Jining Solar Summit Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jining Solar”); Jinxian County Huaguang Food Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Jinxian County Huaguang”); Laiwu Hongyang Trading Company Ltd. (“Laiwu Hongyang”); Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Pizhou Guangda”); Qingdao Bedow Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Bedow”); Qingdao Camel Trading Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Camel”); Qingdao H&T Food Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao H&T”); Qingdao Potenza Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Potenza”); Qingdao Shiboliang Food Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Shiboliang”); Rizhao Xingda Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Rizhao Xingda”); Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Chengshun”); Shandong Dongsheng Eastsun Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Dongsheng”); Shandong Garlic Company (“Shandong Garlic”); Shanghai Ba-Shi Yuexin Logistics Development (“Shanghai Ba-Shi”); T&S International, LLC (“T&S”). Voluntary Respondent In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department did not calculate an individual margin for Qingdao Saturn, which requested to be considered as a voluntary respondent. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 69657-58. For these final results, the Department continues to treat Qingdao Saturn as a separate rate respondent, rather than a voluntary respondent, and is not calculating an individual margin for it. For a full discussion of this issue, *see* Comment 6 of the *Final Decision Memo* . Final Partial Rescission In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department preliminarily rescinded this review with respect to the following three companies: Golden Bridge International, Inc. (“Golden Bridge”), Shanghai McCormick Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai McCormick”), and Zhangqiu Qingyuan Vegetable Co., Ltd. (“Zhangqiu Qingyuan”). 2 Golden Bridge, Shanghai McCormick, and Zhangqiu Qingyuan reported that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 69654. As we stated in the *Preliminary Results* , our examination of shipment data from CBP for the three no shipment companies confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from them during the POR. *See Preliminary Results* 73 FR at 69654. We also received no comments or information to change our preliminary rescission. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to all three aforementioned companies. 2 The review requests for Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Tiantaixing”), Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (“Zhengzhou Harmoni”) were withdrawn, so in the *Preliminary Results* the Department rescinded the review for these two companies and subsequently issued the appropriate liquidation instructions. Changes Since The Preliminary Results We have revised the calculation of the garlic bulb surrogate value. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department used an average of Grade A and Super-A (from May 2006 to January 2007) prices in its calculations. For these final results, however, using Respondents' size data on the record (and the July 2007 Foreign Market Research Report's clarification on the size ranges of Grade A and Super-A), the Department calculated a surrogate value based on the most appropriate Bulletin data. We have concluded that a more accurate analysis would be for the Department to use only Grade Super-A values for all Respondents that reported bulb sizes in ranges of 55 mm and above because bulb sizes that are 55 mm and above are typically classified as Grade Super-A. However, we have also concluded that it is appropriate to average Grade A and Super-A values for all Respondents that reported bulb sizes in ranges below 55 mm because both A and Super-A reflect bulb sizes greater than 40 mm. Moreover, for the final results, we are also only using garlic bulb price data that are contemporaneous with the POR. For a complete explanation of the Department's analysis, *see* the *Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 2. In addition, we are using the updated NME wage rate for the PRC, *see* the *Issues and Decision Memo* at Comment 4. Lastly, we are calculating the separate rate based on the simple average of the two mandatory respondents because using a weighted average risks disclosure of business proprietary information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances* , 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008). Final Results Of Review The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows: Fresh Garlic from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 19.97 Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd. 31.15 Qufu Dongbao Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 25.56 Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 25.56 Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 25.56 Qingdao Xintianfeng Foods 25.56 Shandong Longtai Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. 25.56 Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 25.56 Shenzhen Fanhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. 25.56 Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 25.56 Anqiu Friend Food Co., Ltd. 25.56 Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company 25.56 Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd. 25.56 Qingdao Saturn International Trade Co., Ltd. 25.56 Sunny Import & Export Co., Ltd. 25.56 Henan Weite Industrial Co., Ltd. 25.56 Jinan Farmlady Trading Co., Ltd. 25.56 PRC-Wide Entity 3 376.67 3 The PRC-Wide entity includes Huaiyang Hongda, APS Qingdao, Fujian Meitan, Hongchang, Jining Haijiang, Jining Solar, Jinxian County Huaguang, Laiwu Hongyang, Pizhou Guangda, Qingdao Bedow, Qingdao Camel, Qingdao H&T, Qingdao Potenza, Qingdao Shiboliang, Rizhao Xingda, Shandong Chengshun, Shandong Dongsheng, Shandong Garlic, Shanghai Ba-Shi, and T&S. Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for subject merchandise from the PRC via *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit will be required for that company);

(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including those companies for which this review has been rescinded, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent; and

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Reimbursement Of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 9, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I General Issues: *Comment 1:* Intermediate Input Methodology *Comment 2:* Garlic Bulb Surrogate Value A. Product Specifity B. Broad Market Average C. Public Availability D. Contemporaneity E. Tax and Duty Exclusivity *Comment 3:* Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 4:* Labor Surrogate Value *Comment 5:* By-product Offset Company-Specific Issues: *Comment 6:* Individual Margin Calculation for Qingdao Saturn [FR Doc. E8-13632 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No. 080609747-8749-01] Market Development Cooperator Program

(MDCP)AGENCY: International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: ITA is soliciting projects to strengthen U.S. competitiveness to be conducted by eligible entities for periods of up to three years. Project award periods normally begin between October 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009, but may begin as late as April 1, 2009. MDCP awards help to underwrite the start-up costs of new competitiveness-strengthening ventures that industry groups are often reluctant to undertake without federal support. MDCP aims to develop, maintain and expand foreign markets for non-agricultural goods and services produced in the United States. DATES: Proposals must be received by ITA no later than 5 p.m. EDT, Thursday, July 31, 2008. A public meeting to discuss the competition will be held on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at 2 p.m. ADDRESSES: Proposals must be submitted to ITA, U.S. Department of Commerce, HCHB Rm. 3215; Washington, DC 20230, or via e-mail to *Brad.Hess@mail.doc.gov* . The full funding opportunity announcement and the application kit for this request for applications are available at *http://www.trade.gov/mdcp* , or by contacting Brad Hess at 202-482-2969. The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, HCHB, 14th & Constitution, NW., Washington, DC in Room B 841-B. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested parties who are unable to access information via Internet or who have questions may contact Mr. Brad Hess by mail (see ADDRESSES ), by phone at 202-482-2969, by fax at 202-482-4462, or via Internet at *Brad.Hess@mail.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access:* The full funding opportunity announcement for MDCP is available at *http://www.trade.gov/mdcp* . *Funding Availability:* Approximately $600,000 will be available through this announcement for fiscal year 2008. No award will exceed $250,000. ITA anticipates making a minimum of two awards. Additional awards might be made depending on the amounts requested and the availability of funds. *Statutory Authority:* 15 U.S.C. 4723. *CFDA:* 11.112, Market Development Cooperator Program. *Eligibility:* Trade associations, state departments of trade and their regional associations, and non-profit industry organizations, including organizations such as World Trade Centers, centers for international trade development and small business development centers are eligible to apply for an MDCP award. In cases where no entity described above represents the industry, private industry firms or groups of firms may be eligible to apply for an MDCP award. Such private industry firms or groups of firms must provide in their applications, documentation demonstrating that no entity in the first three categories listed below represents their industry. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Applicants must contribute two dollars for every federal dollar received. At least 50% of the applicant's cost share must be cash. The remaining percentage of the applicant's cost share may be cash or in kind. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Limitation of Liability:* In no event will the Department of Commerce or ITA be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the Department of Commerce or ITA to award funds for any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Evaluation and Selection Procedures:* After receiving the applications, ITA will screen each one to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive an award. After receiving all applications, a selection panel composed of at least three ITA managers will review the applications using the evaluation criteria below, score them, and forward a ranked funding recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services. The evaluation criteria scores assigned by the panel determine which applications are recommended for funding. The Assistant Secretary makes the final selection of award winners, justifying any deviation from the selection panel's ranked recommendation by application of the selection factors listed below. *Evaluation Criteria:* The selection panel reviews each eligible application based on five evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are listed below.

(1)Potential to Strengthen Competitiveness (20%). This is the likelihood that a project will result in export initiatives by U.S. firms, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises.

(2)Performance Measures (20%). Applicants must provide quantifiable estimates of export and market share increases, explain how they are derived, and detail the methods they will use to gather and report performance information.

(3)Partnership and Priorities (20%). This criterion indicates the degree to which the project initiates or enhances partnership with ITA and the degree to which the proposal furthers or is compatible with ITA's priorities.

(4)Creativity and Capacity (20%). Applicants demonstrate creativity, innovation, and realism in the project work plan as well as their institutional capacity to carry out the work plan.

(5)Budget and Sustainability (20%). This criterion indicates the reasonableness and effectiveness of the itemized budget for project activities, the amount of the cash match that is readily available, and the probability that the project can be continued on a self-sustained basis after the completion of the award. The five criteria together constitute the application score. At 20 points per criterion, the total possible score is 100. *Selection Factors:* The Assistant Secretary may deviate from the selection panel's ranked recommendation only based on the following factors:

(1)The selection panel's written assessments,

(2)Degree to which applications satisfy ITA priorities,

(3)Geographic distribution of the proposed awards,

(4)Diversity of industry sectors and overseas markets covered by the proposed awards,

(5)Diversity of project activities represented by the proposed awards,

(6)Avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives of other federal agencies, and

(7)Availability of funds. The ITA priorities referred to under Evaluation Criteria

(3)and Selection Factor

(2)are listed below. ITA is interested in receiving proposals to promote U.S. exports that include, but are not limited to, projects that:

(1)Improve the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and service industries by addressing impediments to innovation and reducing the cost of doing business in foreign countries;

(2)Increase competitiveness of U.S. industries in large markets like China, India, and Brazil by addressing non-tariff barriers, especially those related to standards and intellectual property rights;

(3)Help U.S. industry to capitalize on effective global supply chain management strategies;

(4)Advance market-based approaches to energy, clean development, and commercialization of nuclear and alternative energy technologies;

(5)Facilitate ease of travel to the United States and promote U.S. higher education and training opportunities to non-U.S. entities;

(6)Capitalize on trade opportunities resulting from trade agreements;

(7)Increase overall export awareness and awareness of ITA programs and services among U.S. companies, by making small- and medium-size enterprises export-ready or by facilitating deal-making; and

(8)Support the Administration's broader foreign policy objectives through competitiveness-related initiatives. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7697) are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424 and 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. section 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. section 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Dated: June 11, 2008. Robert W. Pearson, Director, Office of Planning, Coordination and Management, Manufacturing and Services, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E8-13599 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI41 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, Summer 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from PGS Onshore, Inc.

(PGS)for an Incidental Harassment Authorization

(IHA)to take marine mammals incidental to an exploratory three-dimensional

(3D)marine seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, utilizing an ocean bottom cable/ transition zone (OBC/TZ) technique in summer 2008. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to PGS to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals between July and September, 2008, during the aforementioned activity. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed 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. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.0648XI41@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the Internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. A copy of the 2006 Minerals Management Service's

(MMS)Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(PEA)and/or the NMFS/MMS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) are available on the Internet at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289 or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Region,

(907)271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 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 either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), 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.” Section 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 small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: 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 the authorization. Summary of Request On May 9, 2008, NMFS received an application from PGS for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting an exploratory 3D marine seismic survey in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, utilizing an OBC/TZ technique. PGS has been contracted by ENI Petroleum

(ENI)to conduct the seismic survey. The proposed survey is scheduled to occur from July to mid-September 2008. Because the proposed survey is weather and ice dependent, the exact dates of the survey cannot be determined at this time. However, the proposed survey would begin as soon as ice and weather conditions allow, possibly as soon as July 1. The survey is expected to last for an estimated 75 days of data acquisition, excluding weather days. The proposed survey location is in the Nikaitchuq Lease Block (see Figure 1 of PGS' application), north of Oliktok Point and covering Thetis, Spy, and Leavitt Islands, and would extend to the 5-km (3-mi) state/Federal water boundary line and would not go into Federal waters. The water depth in this area ranges from 0-15 m (0-49 ft), and a third of the project waters are shallower than 3 m (10 ft). The total area covered by source or receiver lines is 304.6 km 2 (117.6 mi 2 ); since the islands comprise approximately 1.7 km 2 (0.7 mi 2 ) of this, the total marine area is 303 km 2 (117 mi 2 ). The work would be divided into two parts. Data acquisition (use of airguns) outside the barrier islands (Thetis, Spy, and Leavitt Islands) would be performed first and would be completed by August 5. This portion of the work would begin in the east and move toward the west. Data acquisition inside the barrier islands would then be conducted and would be completed by September 15. This portion of the work would also move from east to west. No data acquisition (use of airguns) would be conducted outside the barrier islands after August 5. Description of Activity The OBC/TZ survey involves deploying cables from small boats, called DIB boats, to the ocean bottom, forming a pattern consisting of three parallel receiver line cables, each a maximum of 17.3 km (10.7 mi) long and spaced approximately 200 m (656 ft) apart. Hydrophones and geophones attached to the cables are used to detect seismic energy reflected back from rock strata below the ocean bottom. The energy is generated from a submerged acoustic source, called a seismic airgun array, that releases compressed air into the water, creating an acoustic energy pulse directed downward toward the seabed. PGS proposes using two shallow water source vessels for this survey. The source vessels will be used sequentially: one vessel will be active while the other travels to its next position. Both source vessels, *M/V Wiley Gunner* and *M/V Little Joe* , will each be equipped with identical airgun arrays with total air discharge volume of 880 in 3 . The source has a peak to peak amplitude equal to 31.4 bar-meters, giving a source output of approximately 250 dB. These airgun arrays are expected to operate at a depth of between 0.91 m and 2.29 m (3 ft and 7.5 ft). Data acquisition would also require the following instrumentation (instrumentation specifications are included in Appendix A of PGS' application): seismic recording equipment; line equipment; transducers; energy source output; bathymetry; and positioning survey equipment. Vessel Descriptions The marine crew would be configured with the following vessels (vessel specifications are included in Appendix A of PGS' application). Vessel usage is subject to availability; however, vessels of similar dimensions will be used if those listed below are unavailable. • Two source vessels, the *M/V Wiley Gunner* and the *M/V Little Joe* , which are both 13 m (44 ft) long, 5.8 m (19 ft) wide, and 3.5 m (11.5 ft) tall with a weight of 18 metric tons (20 tons) loaded and a draft of 0.69 m (2.2 ft) with the engines down. These boats are able to maneuver in waters less than 1.2 m (4 ft) deep. • The recording vessel, *M/V William Bradley* , is a self-propelled barge and has hydraulic gravity spuds that can be lowered in water up to 6 m (20 ft) deep. It would be fitted with a Sercel 408 recording system. The *William Bradley* is 45.7 m (150 ft) long and 11 m (36.1 ft) wide with a draft of 1.23 m (4 ft). • Up to seven shallow-water cable boats (DIB boats) would be available for the survey. The DIB boats are 12.5 m (41 ft) long and 4.3 m (14 ft) wide and have 0.76 m (2.5 ft) draft. The boats are powered by two, 200-horsepower

(HP)diesel Volvo Penta engines. The dry weight of each boat is 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) with a working load of 7.7 metric tons (8.5 tons). • The supply boat *M/V Katmai Spirit* would be used for crew support and supplying marine vessels during the job. The *Katmai Spirit* has dimensions of 12 m (40 ft) long, 5.5 m (18 ft) wide, and 0.6 m (2 ft) draft. • The Project Manager/Client boat would be available for use by the Project Manager, the client, or other personnel as needed to perform their tasks. The boat may also be used for crew support and supplying marine vessels as required. The Project Manager/Client boat has dimensions of 7.3 m (24 ft) long, 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and 0.45 m (1.5 ft) draft. The boat is powered by a 90 HP engine. • The Mechanic's boat would be used to support maintenance and mechanical support for marine vessels used during the project. The Mechanic's boat has dimensions of 7.9 m (26 ft) long, 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and 0.45 m (1.5 ft) draft. The boat is powered by twin 90 HP engines. Seismic Recording Equipment The seismic recording system scheduled to be housed on the *William Bradley* during the proposed 3D marine seismic survey is a Sercel 408. The system would record data using a tape emulator drive hard drive imbedded into the recorder so that verified IBM 3590 archive tapes can be created at the quality control processing laboratory. Digital records would be formatted in SEG D configuration and traced at three lines of 156 per record for every 2-ms periods. The digital filters would be linear or minimum phase, and the anti-alias filters would be high-cut 0.8 Field Nyquist Stop Band Attenuation greater than 120 dB. Record length would be 6 s versus a shot point distance of 34 m (111.5 ft). This Sercel system would be capable of an inter-record delay of equal to or less than 2 s of overhead. The plotter that would also be housed on the *William Bradley* would be a Veritas V-12. Line Equipment PGS would have a 2400 Sercel FDU Operative Remote Acquisition Units available. The following equipment would also be available: 125 Sercel line acquisition unit line repeaters/powers; 12 Sercel line acquisition unit crossing line interface; 20 x-line cables; and 1,200 telemetry cables of 67 m (220 ft) each and 1,200 mini cables of 1 m (3.3 ft) each. Transducers The transducers used during the proposed seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea would be GeoSpace GS-PV1 sensors. The GS30CT geophone has a sensitivity of 2.55 volts

(V)per inch per second ± 2 percent. The pressure phone has a sensitivity of 6.76 V/bar ± 1.5 dB. The hydrophone crystals are configured for acceleration cancellation. Energy Source Output PGS would use an airgun energy source for the proposed data acquisition. A minimum of a 10-airgun array is expected to be used as a single output source. The operating source depth for the guns is a maximum of 2.5 m (8.2 ft). Source centers separation will be from 1-1.5 m (3.3-4.9 ft), and the shot point distance is 34 m (110 ft). The single source volume is 880 in 3 . Although PGS is proposing to use only a 10-airgun array for acquisition, a 12 airgun array would be placed on each vessel. This would provide two spare airguns at all times. The source layout will be 8 m (26 ft) wide by 6 m (20 ft) long. At a depth of 2.5 m (8.2 ft), the point to point output pressure is plus or minus 22 bar meters, giving a signal/bubble ratio of 10:1. The array is designed to direct sound pressure downwards, as shown in Figure 2 of PGS' application. The power is provided by either a 78 cubic feet per minute

(CFM)or 150 CFM diesel air compressor. The air pressure can deliver between 1,750 pounds per square inch

(psi)to 1,900 psi. This system will require a 12-s to 15-s recycle time. The energy source synchronizing system is a Digital Real Time Long Shot Source Controller. Bathymetry Bathymetric equipment would be located on each of the source vessels and the shallow-water cable boats. Bathymetric data would be recorded simultaneously with the seismic data acquisition, by employing Interspace Tech DX 150 (or equivalent) instruments, which can operate in water up to 120 m (400 ft) deep. This equipment has an operating frequency of 200 kHz and a sound source of 100 dB re 1 μPa. The digitizer and logger system would be a National Marine Electronic Association standard output to Horizon. PGS would use a Gator INM system and a Gator INS system as source firing controllers. For measures of depth, temperature, and salinity, a Valeport TS Dip Meter would be used. Positioning Survey Equipment To conduct the proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, PGS would employ a Novatel system and a global positioning system

(GPS)mobile receiver with 8 to 12 channels of dual frequency. For the Novatel system, there would be three onshore reference stations and four valid satellites. As a second main system, PGS has available a Trimble 4700 system and a GPS Mobile Receiver, also with 8 to 12 channels of dual frequency. For the Trimble 4700, there would be two onshore reference stations. PGS will also have 700 active Sonardyne Acoustic transponders available for in-water positioning. Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, fin, humpback, and North Pacific right whales, harbor porpoises, ringed, spotted, bearded, and ribbon seals, polar bears, and walruses. These latter two species are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not discussed further in this document. Within the project activity areas, only the polar bear is known to occur in significant numbers, and a separate Letter of Authorization request will be submitted by PGS to USFWS for this species. A total of three cetacean species and three pinniped species are known to occur or may occur in the Beaufort Sea in or near the proposed project area (see Table 3.0-1 in PGS' application for information on habitat and estimated abundance). Of these species, only the bowhead whale is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The killer whale, harbor porpoise, minke whale, fin whale, North Pacific right whale, humpback whale, and ribbon seal could occur in the Beaufort Sea, but each of these species is rare or extralimital and unlikely to be encountered in the proposed seismic survey area. The marine mammal species expected to be encountered most frequently throughout the seismic survey in the project area is the ringed seal. The bearded and spotted seal can also be observed but to a far lesser extent than the ringed seal. Presence of beluga, bowhead, and gray whales in the shallow water environment within the barrier islands is possible but expected to be very limited as this is not their typical habitat. Descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population status of the marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction can be found in PGS' application, the 2007 NMFS/MMS DPEIS on Arctic Seismic Surveys, and the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARS). The Alaska SAR is available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2007.pdf* . Please refer to those documents for information on these species. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-auditory effects (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). As outlined in previous NMFS documents, 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. Tolerance Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. Numerous studies have shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times, mammals of all three types have shown no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds and small odontocetes seem to be more tolerant of exposure to airgun pulses than baleen whales. Masking Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are very few specific data of relevance. Some whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson *et al.* , 1986; McDonald *et al.* , 1995; Greene *et al.* , 1999; Nieukirk *et al.* , 2004). Although there has been one report that sperm whales cease calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles *et al.* , 1994), a more recent study reports that sperm whales off northern Norway continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen *et al.* , 2002). That has also been shown during recent work in the Gulf of Mexico (Tyack *et al.* , 2003; Smultea *et al.* , 2004). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses. Dolphins and porpoises commonly are heard calling while airguns are operating (e.g., Gordon *et al.* , 2004; Smultea *et al.* , 2004; Holst *et al.* , 2005a; 2005b). Also, the sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds. Disturbance Reactions Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or the species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on the animals could be significant. Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals were present within a particular distance of industrial activities or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. That likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that are affected in some biologically-important manner. The following species summaries are provided to facilitate understanding of our knowledge of impulsive noise impacts on the principal marine mammal species that are expected to be affected. The impacts on Beaufort Sea cetaceans and pinnipeds are likely to be short-term and transitory. *Bowhead Whales* —Bowhead whales will likely show some behavioral changes during airgun activity, but depending on distance from the noise source, overall displacement should be minimal. Bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea were observed remaining in a location where they were exposed to seismic, dredging, and drilling sounds. Their social and feeding behavior appeared normal as industry-related noises occurred (Richardson *et al.* , 1987). When observed over multiple years, bowhead whales in the same area also did not appear to avoid seismic locations. MMS did not find a statistical difference in the change of direction for bowhead whales traveling during seismic activity when analyzing fall migration data from 1996 to 1998 (MMS, 2005). Bowhead and gray whales have not appeared bothered when seismic pulses between 160 dB and 170 dB re 1 μPa were fired from a seismic vessel within a few km of their locality, but tended to avoid the area when levels exceeded 170 dB (Richardson *et al.* , 1997). Common behavioral responses of marine mammals include displacement, startle, attraction to sound, altered communication sounds, discontinued feeding, disruption to social behaviors, temporary or permanent habitat abandonment, panic, flight, stampede, and in worse cases stranding, and sometimes death (Nowacek *et al.* , 2007; Southall *et al.* , 2007; Gordon *et al.* , 2004). Behavior ranges from temporary to severe, and the effects can influence foraging, reproduction, or survival. Response level is based on how habituated or sensitive the individual mammal is and whether or not previous interactions with sound was positive, negative, or neutral (Southall *et al.* , 2007). The common behavioral patterns seen in bowhead whales when seismic operations were operated nearby include displacement, avoidance, and altered respiration (Richardson *et al.* ,1999; Ljungland *et al.* , 1988). Whales may also display varied reactions based on the time of year and activity. Bowhead whales migrating in the fall exhibited avoidance at distances up to 20 km (12 mi) or more, while bowheads feeding during summer displayed more subtle reactions and did not show a strong avoidance at distances past 6 km (3.7 mi) from active airguns (Miller *et al.* , 2005). It is unclear exactly what causes displacement, but whales have tended to show shorter surface and dive times, fewer blows per surfacing, and longer blow intervals when noise levels were at or above 152 dB and showed avoidance of seismic operations within a 20-km (12-mi) radius (Ljungbald, 1988; Richardson, 1999). Bowhead whales may also flee from or show total avoidance of vessels if they are too close. Bowhead whales showed total avoidance at distances of 1.3 km, 7.2 km, 3.5 km, and 2.9 km (0.8 mi, 4.5 mi, 2.2 mi, and 1.8 mi) when sound levels were 152 dB, 165 dB, 178 dB, and 165 dB, respectively (Ljungbald *et al.* , 1988). Based upon McCauley *et al.*

(2000)bowhead whales exhibit a behavioral change at 120 dB when migrating. However, other low-frequency cetaceans, including bowhead whales, exhibit behavioral changes at 140 dB to 160 dB when not migrating, and sometimes higher levels (Miller *et al.* , 2005). *Beluga Whales* —Seismic activity is expected to cause temporary displacement of beluga whales, but the impact is not expected to be significant. Belugas have been shown to have greater displacement in response to a moving source (e.g., airgun activity on a moving vessel) and less displacement or behavioral change in response to a stationary source. The presence of belugas has been documented within the ensonified zones of industrial sites near platforms and stationary dredges, and the belugas did not seem to be disturbed by the activity (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). When drilling sounds were played to belugas in industry-free areas, the belugas only showed a behavioral reaction when received levels were high. For example, beluga whales have been observed to show only an initial scare when drilling noises were played with a received level greater than or equal to 153 dB re 1 μPa. Richardson

(1997)suggested that the effect could be a result of belugas having less sensitivity to low-frequency sounds. Other reports suggested that belugas will remain far away from seismic vessels (Miller *et al.* , 2005). A study in the Beaufort Sea observed low numbers of belugas within 10 km to 20 km (6 mi to 12 mi) of seismic vessels (noted in LGL, 2006). *Gray Whales* —Gray whales in the immediate area of seismic activity will likely show some behavioral changes. The changes in behavior, however, depend upon distance from the seismic source and are expected to be minimal. In a study including gray whales, behavioral responses were observed when the whales were subjected to seismic sounds between 160 and 170 dB re 1 μPa. Studies in the Bering Sea by Malme *et al.* (1986, 1988) showed the responses of gray whales to seismic sound pulses from a 100 in 3 airgun array. Fifty percent of feeding whales stopped feeding when exposed to sound levels of 173 dB re 1 μPa on average, and 10 percent stopped feeding at a received sound level of 163 dB re 1 μPa. One whale study found indications of behavioral changes such as increased swim speed and shorter blow periods for seismic activities at a distance of up to 30 km (Wursig *et al.* , 1999). However, when conducting shore-based counts Johnson

(2007)did not mention any change in behavior and found no significance between abundance and seismic activity. Also, given the infrequent occurrence of gray whales in the Beaufort Sea east of Point Barrow, recent marine mammal observer

(MMO)information from the Beaufort Sea indicating that, at least for bowhead whales, sound pressure levels of 160 dB or less did not result in abandonment of feeding areas, and the incorporation of mitigation and monitoring measures, including the use of MMOs and avoidance of concentrated areas of feeding whales, the number of animals exposed to sound levels that could cause disturbance of feeding or other behaviors should be greatly reduced. Data on short-term reactions of cetaceans to impulsive noises do not necessarily provide information about long-term effects. It is not known whether impulsive noises affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. Gray whales continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Malme *et al.* , 1984; Richardson *et al.* , 1995; Angliss and Outlaw, 2005). *Ringed Seals* —Ringed seals are expected to have only short-term and temporary displacement as a result of the proposed PGS project activities. Seals should not be exposed to source levels higher than 190 dB re 1 μPa due to the potential for hearing damage. Though ringed seals have density and estimated take higher than other marine mammals in the project area, ringed seals exposed to sound sources as high as 200 dB, displayed only brief orientation and minor behavioral modifications, and only momentarily left young (Moulton *et al.* , 2005; Southall, 2007; Blackwell, 2004). Any behavioral reactions to activities should only be temporary and not disrupt reproductive activities. When industrial-related sounds propagated 1-3 km (0.6-1.9 mi) within ringed seal locations, normal behavior such as maintaining active breathing holes and lairs continued, and observed breeding females appeared not to be bothered (Moulton *et al.* , 2005). In 1998, a total of 252 ringed seals were counted in the project area over a period of 1,331 hours, contributing to 98.5 percent of the total pinniped population during this time. Richardson

(1999)found sounds produced from both a 16 - 1,500 in 3 sleeve gun array and another 8 - 560 in 3 sleeve gun array affected distribution and behavior only when seals were within a few hundred meters of the array, and ringed seals remained in the project area during operations. During seismic activities, whales also remained at a mean radial distance of 223 m (731 ft) during seismic operations and 116 m (381 ft) when seismic operations did not occur (Richardson, 1999). Over time, ringed seals may also show less displacement and fewer behavioral changes. In one study, ringed seals remained distant from activities during the first season of seismic activities, but during the second season, were observed at close proximity of the marine vessel. No observable behavioral changes were accounted for with received levels ranging between 170 and 200 dB (Miller *et al.* , 2005). *Spotted Seals* —The total number of spotted seals in Alaska is assumed to be tens of thousands, and their range sometimes includes the Beaufort Sea (MMS, 1996; Rugh *et al.* , 1997). Any impacts on spotted seal populations should also be minimal as high numbers of spotted seals should not occur in the project area. From July-September 1996, Harris *et al.*

(2001)counted a total of 422 seals in the Beaufort Sea. Of the seals counted, only 0.9 percent (n = 4) were spotted seals. Spotted seal reactions to seismic activities are typically minimal, and spotted seals have demonstrated little or no reaction to scare devices even when linked to areas for feeding or reproduction (Harris *et al.* , 2001). *Bearded Seals* —In a study during summer 1996, Harris *et al.*

(2001)found bearded seals were 7.3 percent (n = 31) of the total number of seals counted. Though bearded seals are bottom feeders and are usually found in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft), if the rarity of an encounter should occur, bearded seals, like other pinnipeds, should demonstrate only minimal displacement and behavioral reaction. Bearded seals did not show reactions to 1,450 in 3 to 2,250 in 3 airguns when received levels averaged in the range of 170-200 dB (Richardson, 1999). Hearing Impairment When conducting the proposed seismic activities, TTS or permanent threshold shift

(PTS)is not expected to occur in marine mammals. When marine mammals located within a vulnerable range (> 180 dB re 1 μPa for cetaceans, or > 190 dB re 1 μPa for pinnipeds) are impacted by impulsive noises, the noises can lead to TTS or PTS. When TTS occurs, the result is reversible: hearing in exposed mammals is temporarily affected. TTS may result in mammals failing to locate predators or prey and the inability to communicate effectively with other individuals of the same species. When the threshold does not return to the original threshold levels, the damage is classified as PTS. It is unknown what level of sound will cause PTS in marine mammals, but it is reasoned to occur at a much greater level than that caused by TTS (Southall *et al.* , 2007). TTS and PTS in given species depends upon the frequency sensitivity of that species. Bowhead and gray whales operate at a low frequency, killer whale and beluga at mid frequency, and the harbor porpoise at high frequency (Southall, 2005). Finneran

(2002)estimated that sound levels greater than 192 dB re 1 μPa will lead to TTS in most cetaceans. There are no data identifying the level of sound intensity that causes TTS in baleen whales, but because most baleen whales show avoidance at certain sound intensities, risk of TTS should be avoided (MMS, 2006; Southall, 2007). Under prolonged exposure, pinnipeds have been shown to exhibit TTS. Kastak *et al.*

(1999)investigated the effects of noise on two California sea lions, one northern elephant seal, and one harbor seal. Kastak *et al.*

(1999)subjected each pinniped to a noise source (100 to 2,000 Hz) for 20 to 22 min. Each pinniped showed a threshold shift averaging 4.8 dB (harbor seal), 4.9 dB (sea lion), and 4.6 dB (northern elephant seal) until the hearing threshold returned to pre-exposure values (under a 12-hour period). PGS mitigation measures, such as monitoring by MMOs within the safety zone and ramp-up prior to seismic operations, should prevent marine mammals from sound exposure that causes TTS and PTS. Currently NMFS considers 190 dB re 1 μPa received level as the onset of TTS for pinnipeds. Potential Effects of Bathymetric Equipment on Marine Mammals The bathymetric equipment used to determine depth will operate at a frequency of 200 kHz and sound source of 100 dB. At a frequency of this caliber, any overlap with the functional marine mammal hearing groups and the estimated auditory bandwidth at which they are suspected to hear will be avoided (Southall *et al.* , 2007). Of the marine mammals in the project area, bowhead whales are considered low-frequency mammals, and their estimated bandwidth occurs between 7 and 22 kHz (Southall *et al.* , 2007). Though no direct measurements have been tested directly on the low-frequency cetaceans, such as bowhead whales, hearing sensitivity was determined by observable levels of response to sound levels played at various frequencies, including vocalization frequencies (Southall *et al.* , 2007; Richardson *et al.* , 1995). The only mid-frequency marine mammal expected within the project area is the beluga whale. Estimated auditory bandwidth for belugas occurs between 150 Hz and 160 kHz (Southall *et al.* , 2007). Beluga hearing is functional and occurs over a low to very high range. Belugas also typically detect signals only within their frequency but have specialized echolocation features that cater to communication and tracking prey (Southall *et al.* , 2007). No high-frequency cetaceans are expected within the project area; however, pinnipeds, such as the ringed, spotted, and bearded seals will be present. Pinnipeds lack the specialized biosonar systems common to beluga whales. Pinnipeds also communicate in water and air but are expected to be more sensitive to noises in water. Pinnipeds are estimated to have an auditory bandwidth range at 75 Hz to 75 kHz in water and 75 Hz to 30 kHz in air (Southall *et al.* , 2007). Based on information that is available, the bathymetric equipment proposed to be used within the project area will not overlap with the hearing range of marine mammals. Therefore, the likelihood of impacts, if any, are expected to be quite low. Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by Incidental Harassment The anticipated harassments from the activities described above may involve temporary changes in behavior and short-term displacement within ensonified areas. There is no evidence that the planned activities could result in injury, serious injury, or mortality, for example due to collisions with vessels. Disturbance reactions, such as avoidance, are very likely to occur amongst marine mammals in the vicinity of the source vessel. The mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented (described later in this document) during this survey are based on Level B harassment criteria and will minimize any potential risk to injury or mortality. The methodology used by PGS to estimate incidental take by harassment by seismic and the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected in the proposed seismic acquisition activity area in the Beaufort Sea is presented here. The bowhead whale, beluga whale, and bearded seal density estimates are based on the estimates developed by LGL

(2005)for the University of Alaska IHA and used here for consistency. The ringed seal density estimates are from Frost *et al.* (2002). Spotted seal density estimates were derived from Green *et al.* (2005; 2006; 2007) observations that spotted seals in the Beaufort Sea in the vicinity represent about 5 percent of all phocid seal sightings and then multiplying Frost *et al.* 's

(2002)density estimates times 5 percent. Exposure Calculations for Marine Mammals In its application, PGS presented the average and maximum estimates of “take,” which were calculated by multiplying the expected average and maximum animal densities provided in Table 6.2-1 in the application by the area of ensonification. The area of ensonification was assumed to be the length of trackline in marine waters multiplied by the 160-dB and 170-dB isopleths times 2. The total length of trackline in marine waters is estimated at 1,280 km (795 mi), including 770 km (478 mi) outside the barrier islands and 510 km (317 mi) inside the barrier islands. In the PGS' application, it provides both average and maximum density data for the marine mammals that are likely to be adversely affected. These density numbers were based on survey and monitoring data of marine mammals in recent years in the vicinity of the proposed action area (LGL, 2005; Frost *et al.* , 2002; Green *et al.* , 2005; 2006; 2007). In addition, PGS also provided maximum density estimates for those marine mammal populations. The average and maximum population density of marine mammals are provided in Table 6.2.1 of the PGS application. However, PGS did not provide a rationale regarding the maximum estimate or a description as to how these maximum density estimates were calculated. NMFS decides that the average density data of marine mammal populations will be used to calculate estimated take numbers because these numbers are based on surveys and monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed project area. In its review of PGS' application, NMFS determined that the safety radii calculated by PGS were too small based on the size and source level of the airgun array to be used. Therefore, NMFS requested that PGS submit an addendum to the IHA application, which outlined in greater detail the modeling techniques used. Based on this additional information, NMFS recalculated the distances to the 160-, 170-, 180-, and 190-dB isopleths, using 250 dB as the source output. Based on this new information, the respective radii for the 160-, 170-, 180-, and 190-dB isopleths are: 2,894 m (1.8 mi); 1,194 m (0.74 mi); 492 m (0.31 mi); and 203 m (0.13 mi). The total area of ensonification using the 160-dB criteria is 7,398.4 km 2 (2,856.5 mi 2 ; including 4,450.6 km 2 , or 1,718.4 mi 2 outside the barrier islands; and 2,947.8 km 2 , or 1,138.1 mi 2 inside the barrier islands) and for the 170-dB criteria is 3,056.6 km 2 (1,180.2 mi 2 ; including 1,838.8 km 2 , or 710 mi 2 outside the barrier islands, and 1,217.9 km 2 , or 470.2 mi 2 inside the barrier islands). However, given that none of the area occurs in waters greater than 15 m (49 ft) deep (and half the area is in waters less than 4 m, 13 ft, deep), which is not suitable habitat for migrating bowhead whales, which has been defined as waters 15-200 m (49-660 ft) deep (Richardson and Thomson, 2002), this calculation provides a very conservative estimate of potential take. Therefore, only the area outside the barrier islands was used in the calculations for bowhead whales. The “take” estimates were determined by multiplying the various density estimates in Table 6.2-1 by the ensonification area using the 160-dB criteria for cetaceans and the 170-dB criteria for pinnipeds. However, NMFS has noted in the past that it is unaware of any empirical evidence to indicate that pinnipeds do not respond at the lower level (i.e., 160 dB). As a result, NMFS will estimate Level B harassment takes based on the 160-dB criterion. The bowhead and beluga density estimates come from LGL

(2005)and the ringed seal estimates from Frost *et al.* (2002). The spotted seal densities were determined by multiplying the ringed seal estimate by 5 percent, a reflection of three years of survey results by Green *et al.* (2005; 2006; 2007), showing that spotted seals represented about 5 percent of several thousand phocid sightings in nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea. Based on the calculation of using the average density estimates presented in Table 6.2-1 in PGS' application and the area of ensonification outlined above, it is estimated that up to approximately 28 bowhead whales, 25 beluga whales, 1,467 ringed seals, 73 spotted seals, and 20 bearded seals would be affected by Level B behavioral harassment as a result of the proposed 3D OBC/TZ seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. These take numbers represent 0.27 percent of the western Arctic stock of bowhead whales, 0.06 percent of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales, and 0.59 percent, 0.12 percent, and 0.008 percent of the Alaska stocks of ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, respectively. Although gray whales are considered to be an extralimital species in the project area, there have been a few rare sightings in the Beaufort Sea east of Point Barrow in late summer and as far east as Smith Bay (Green *et al.* , 2007). Currently, there are no reliable density or population estimates for gray whales in the project area. A take estimate of two gray whales has been requested. This number is considered minimal based on the population size of the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales. PGS plans to continue conducting seismic surveys after August 25, the commencement of annual bowhead whale hunt, and the beginning of the fall bowhead migration. NMFS requires take estimates be evaluated out to the 120-dB isopleth for any operation occurring after August 25, unless the operator can show that their sound source would attenuate to less than 120 dB before reaching the normal bowhead whale migration lanes. Because of the downward sound directionality of the proposed array configuration, the radius to the 120-dB isopleth would extend out to about 10-15 km (6-9 mi). Further, beginning in early August, PGS will move their operations inside the barrier islands and remain there throughout the subsistence hunt and whale migration. Consequently, the closest 120 dB level sounds could reach migrating whales is a point approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of a line between Spy and Thetis islands. At this point the water depth is approximately 6 m (20 ft), less than suitable habitat for migrating bowhead whales. Further, much of the sound emanating from inside the barrier islands would be blocked by Spy, Thetis, and Leavitt Islands, leaving only a fraction of the survey area inside the barrier islands from which the 120-dB radius could even reach a point 10 km (6 mi) north of barrier islands. During most of the survey inside the barrier islands, it is expected that the 120-dB radii would not extend at all outside the barrier islands since the islands will absorb the sound. However, the 120-dB radius estimate is based on modeling. Actual field measurements of acoustical signatures for the proposed array are planned at the onset of the surveys. Should these measurements determine that the 120-dB radius could extend into the bowhead whale migration corridor, additional mitigation measures will be proposed in conjunction with consultation with NMFS, the North Slope Borough (NSB), and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). Because PGS plans to operate inside the barrier islands only during the fall, and these interior habitats typically provide less suitable habitat for marine mammals as compared to outside the barrier islands, no increase in animal densities are expected during the fall seismic survey. Thus, separate take estimates for the fall period were not calculated. Conclusions Impacts of seismic sounds on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. No Level A takes (including injury, serious injury, or mortality) are expected as a result of the proposed activities. The estimated numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause behavioral disturbance are very low percentages of the population sizes in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas. Mitigation measures such as look outs, non-pursuit, shutdowns or power-downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges, and avoiding migration pathways when animals are likely most sensitive to noise will further reduce short-term reactions, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Subsistence issues are addressed later in this document. Potential Impact on Habitat The proposed seismic survey will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals or their prey sources. Furthermore, seismic activity will take place in shallow, nearshore waters less than 15 m (49 ft) deep, which is not considered to be bowhead whale habitat. No impacts are expected to the ocean floor or anticipated by placing geophones on the ocean floor. Relative to toothed whale and pinniped prey, a broad discussion of the various types of potential effects of exposure to seismic activity on fish and invertebrates can be found in LGL (2005). This discussion includes a summary of direct mortality (pathological/physiological) and indirect (behavioral) effects. Mortality to fish, fish eggs, and larvae from seismic energy sources would be expected within a few meters (0.5 m to 3 m, 1.6 ft to 10 ft) from the seismic source. Direct mortality has been observed in cod and plaice within 48 hours after they were subjected to seismic pulses 2 m (6.6 ft) from the source (Matishov, 1992); however other studies did not report any fish kills from seismic source exposure (La Bella *et al.* , 1996; IMG, 2002; Hassel *et al.* , 2003). To date, fish mortalities associated with normal seismic operations are thought to be slight. Saetre and Ona

(1996)modeled a worst-case mathematical approach on the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic energy are so low compared to natural mortality that issues relating to stock recruitment should be regarded as insignificant. Limited studies on physiological effects on marine fish and invertebrates to acoustic stress have been conducted. No significant increases in physiological stress from seismic energy were detected for various fish, squid, and cuttlefish (McCauley *et al.* , 2000) or for male snow crabs (Christian *et al.* , 2003). Behavioral changes in fish associated with seismic exposures from project activities are expected to be minor at best. Because only a small portion of the available foraging habitat would be subjected to seismic pulses at a given time, fish would be expected to return to the area of disturbance within anywhere from 15-30 min (McCauley *et al.* , 2000) to several days (Engas *et al.* , 1996) after cessation of activities. Available data indicate that mortality and behavioral changes do occur within very close range to the seismic sources; however, the proposed seismic site clearance activity in the Beaufort Sea is predicted to have a negligible effect on the prey resources of the various life stages of fish and invertebrates available to marine mammals. Further, the 880 in 3 array, proposed for this project, produces a relatively low energy pulse (250 dB) compared to the seismic systems used in the above studies. It is estimated that only a small portion of the marine mammals utilizing the areas of the proposed activities would be temporarily displaced. No loss of habitat is anticipated due to laying cable on the ocean floor. During the period of seismic surveying (July through mid-September), most marine mammals would be dispersed throughout the area. The peak of the bowhead whale migration through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea typically occurs in September. Starting in late August, bowheads may travel in proximity to the seismic surveys and hear sounds from vessel traffic and seismic activity, which might temporarily displace some whales. In addition, feeding does not appear to be an important activity for bowheads migrating through the Chukchi Sea in most years; however, sightings of bowhead whales do occur in the summer near Barrow (Moore and DeMaster, 2000), and there are suggestions that certain areas near Barrow are important feeding grounds. In the absence of important feeding areas, the potential diversion of a small number of bowheads away from survey activities is not expected to have any significant or long-term consequences for individual bowheads or their population. Bowheads are not expected to be excluded from any habitat. The numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds subject to displacement are very small in relation to abundance estimates for the mammals addressed under this IHA request. The proposed activities are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that would produce long-term effects to marine mammals or their habitat due to the limited extent and very nearshore location of the survey area. Effects of Seismic Noise and Other Related Activities on Subsistence Subsistence hunting and fishing is historically, and continues to be, an essential aspect of Alaska Native life, especially in rural coastal villages. The Inupiat people participate in subsistence hunting and fishing activities in and around the Beaufort Sea. The animals taken for subsistence provide a significant portion of the food that will feed the people throughout the year. Along with providing the nourishment necessary for survival, subsistence activities strengthen bonds within the culture, provide a means for educating the young, provide supplies for artistic expression, and allow for important celebratory events. Only minor, temporary effects from the seismic survey project are anticipated on Native subsistence hunting. PGS does not expect any permanent impacts on marine mammals that will adversely affect subsistence hunting. Mitigation efforts will be implemented to minimize or completely avoid any adverse effects on marine mammals. Additionally, areas being used for subsistence hunting grounds will be avoided. It is anticipated that only minor, temporary displacement of marine mammals will occur. Alaska Natives, including the Inupiat, legally hunt several species of marine mammals. Marine animals used for subsistence within the Beaufort Sea region include bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, spotted, and bearded seals. Each village along the Beaufort Sea hunts key subsistence species. Hunts for these animals occur during different seasons throughout the year. Depending upon the success of a village's hunt for a certain species, another species may become a priority in order to provide enough nourishment to sustain the village. Communities that participate in subsistence activities potentially affected by seismic surveys within the proposed development area are Nuiqsut and Barrow. Nuiqsut is the village nearest to the proposed seismic activity area. Bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, spotted, and bearded seals are harvested by residents of Nuiqsut. Because the village is 56 km (35 mi) inland (Alaska community Online Database, 2008), whaling crews travel in aluminum skiffs equipped with outboard motors to offshore areas such as Cross Island (Funk and Galginaitis, 2005). Of the marine mammals harvested, bowhead whales are most commonly harvested. In 1992 an estimated 34,884 kg (76,906 lbs) were harvested (ADF&G, 2008). Seals are also regularly hunted and may account for up to 3,770 kg (8,310 lbs) of harvest, while beluga whale harvests account for little or none (ADF&G, 2008). Barrow residents' main subsistence focus is concentrated on biannual bowhead whale hunts that take place during the spring and fall. Other animals, such as seals, are hunted outside of the whaling season, but they are not the primary source of the subsistence harvest (URS Corp., 2005). Bowhead Whales The bowhead whales that could potentially be affected by seismic activity in the Beaufort Sea come from the Western Arctic stock. The majority of these whales migrate annually during the spring from wintering grounds in the Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea, to summer grounds in the Beaufort Sea. During the fall migration, the whales travel back through the Chukchi Sea to their wintering grounds in the Bering Sea. While on their spring migration route, bowhead whales travel through leads in the ice between the shore-fast ice and pack ice. In a study of approximately 440 bowhead whales between 1989 and 1994 off the coast of Point Barrow, Richardson *et al.*

(1995)documented movements and behaviors in response to playback of sounds similar to those produced by site clearance and shallow hazard surveys. Whale behavior in relation to the sound level being received at the whales' locations was observed. The research team concluded that the sounds emitted did not have a biologically significant effect on bowhead movement, distribution, or behavior. Ten primary coastal Alaskan villages deploy whaling crews during whale migrations. Of these ten, Nuiqsut has the potential to be affected by the proposed project, as it is the village situated closest to the proposed project area. Barrow is located farther from the proposed seismic activity but has the potential to be affected. These two communities are part of the AEWC. The AEWC was formed as a response to the International Whaling Commission's past closure of bowhead whale hunting for subsistence purposes. IWC sets a quota for the whale hunt, and AEWC allocates the quota between villages. Each of the villages within the AEWC is represented by a Whaling Captains' Association. Bowhead whales migrate within the hunting range of whaling crews in the spring (north migration) and the fall (south migration). In the spring, the whales must travel through leads in the ice that tend to occur close to shore. In the fall, the water is much more open, allowing the whales to swim farther from the coast. Whaling crews in Barrow hunt in both the spring and the fall (Funk and Galginaitis, 2005). In the spring, the whales are hunted along leads that occur when the pack ice starts deteriorating. This tends to occur in Barrow between the first week of April and the first week of June, well before the geophysical surveys will be conducted. The proposed seismic survey is anticipated to start after all the ice melts, in approximately mid-July, and will not affect spring whaling. Fall whaling activities are anticipated to take place east of Point Barrow (BLM, 2005). The project area is located 260 km (160 mi) east of Point Barrow. It is anticipated that the project will not impact the Barrow fall hunt. The Nuiqsut fall whale hunt takes place in the vicinity of Cross Island, ranging from there to approximately 50 km (30 mi) north of the island. The project area is located approximately 60 km (37 mi) west of Cross Island and is too shallow (less than 15 m, 50 ft deep) to support bowhead whales. It is unlikely that the Nuiqsut fall hunt would extend to the project area. Adverse impacts on the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales as a result of the proposed survey are not anticipated. Beluga Whales Beluga whales summer in the waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and winter in the Bering Sea. Living in areas mostly covered in ice, they are associated with leads and polynyas (Haard, 1988). Beluga whales can be hunted from the first week in April to July or August. It is common for the Inupiat to refrain from hunting beluga during the spring or fall bowhead whale hunt to prevent scaring the larger whales away from hunting locations. Belugas do not account for a majority of the total subsistence harvest in Barrow or Nuiqsut (ADF&G, 2008). Between 1999 and 2003, the annual beluga subsistence “take” was 65 (Frost and Suydam, 1995). Ringed Seals Ringed seals are distributed throughout the Arctic Ocean. They inhabit both seasonal and permanent ice. An abundance and distribution study conducted in the Beaufort Sea before, during, and after anthropogenic sound-producing construction found that there were only slight changes near construction activities around British Petroleum's (BP's) Northstar oil development that most likely were caused by environmental factors (Moulton *et al.* , 2005). Harris *et al.*

(2001)performed a study using 3D seismic arrays in which the number of seal sightings varied only slightly in periods of no sonar firing, single sonar firing, and multiple-array sonar firing. Seals tended to stay slightly farther away from the vessel at times of full-array sonar firing, but they rarely moved more than 250 m (820 ft) from the vessel. Sonar activity was interrupted when seals came within a certain radius (150 m, 492 ft, to 250 m, 820 ft) of the vessel, in accordance with regulations set by NMFS. Ringed seals are available to subsistence users year-round, but they are primarily hunted in the winter due to the rich availability of other mammals in the summer. In 2000, the annual estimated subsistence “take” from Alaska of ringed seals was 9,567. Because the bulk of the ringed seal hunting will occur outside the time scope of the proposed project, adverse impacts on ringed seals as a result of the proposed survey are not anticipated. Spotted Seals Spotted seals in Alaska are distributed along the continental shelf of the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas. These seals migrate south from the Chukchi Sea, through the Bering Strait, into the Bering Sea beginning in October. They spend the winter in the Bering Sea traveling east and west along the ice edge (Lowry *et al.* , 1998). Because of the numbers of whales and bearded seals and the opportunities for subsistence harvesting of them, spotted and ringed seals are primarily hunted during winter months in the Beaufort Sea. Since this time frame is outside the scope of the proposed project, subsistence activities involving spotted and ringed seals are unlikely to occur during the survey (BLM, 2005). PGS does not anticipate adverse effects to spotted seals as a result of project activities. Bearded Seals Bearded seals tend to inhabit relatively shallow water (less than 200 m, 656 ft, deep) that does not have much ice. In Alaska, they are distributed along the continental shelf of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. Most bearded seals migrate in the spring from the Bering Sea, through the Bering Strait, and into the Chukchi Sea and spend the summer season along the ice edge. Some bearded seals do not migrate and spend all year in the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. According to a subsistence harvest database, the 2000 annual harvest of bearded seals in Alaska was 6,788 (ADF&G, 2000). Bearded seals are an important source of meat and hide for Chukchi Sea villages. They tend to be targeted by subsistence users over ringed and spotted seals because they are very large. This provides a large amount of meat and skins for constructing boats (BLM, 2005). Bearded seals are primarily hunted during July in the Beaufort Sea; however, in 2007, bearded seals were harvested in the months of August and September at the mouth of the Colville River Delta (Smith, pers. comm., 2008). The proposed project location is not a primary subsistence hunting ground; however, it is occasionally used by residents of Nuiqsut for subsistence hunting of bearded seals. An annual bearded seal harvest occurs in the vicinity of Thetis Island in July through August (J. Nukapigak, Nuiqsut hunter, pers. comm., 2008). Approximately 20 bearded seals are harvested annually through this hunt. PGS anticipates that there is not a significant potential for the proposed project to affect the bearded seal subsistence hunt. Mitigation measures will be in place to minimize potential impacts. Plan of Cooperation

(POC)Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. PGS developed a Draft POC, which included a timeline of meetings set to occur in the communities identified as potentially being affected by the proposed project. These communities are Nuiqsut and Barrow. The Draft POC document was distributed to the communities, subsistence users groups, NMFS, and USFWS on March 20, 2008. Based upon discussions with communities and subsistence users, PGS has incorporated changes to the project to reduce potential subsistence conflicts. These changes are discussed in Addendum 1 of the Draft POC, which was submitted to the potentially affected communities and subsistence users groups, NMFS, and USFWS on May 7, 2008. Copies were also available during POC meetings in Barrow on May 8, 2008, and in Nuiqsut on May 9, 2008. A Final POC document including all input from potentially affected communities and subsistence users groups will be provided upon completion of the May POC meetings. Meetings that have taken place prior to the survey include: • February 7, 2008: AEWC 2008 Conflict Avoidance Agreement

(CAA)meeting with Nuiqsut whalers in Deadhorse to present the proposed project and to gather feedback in support of a 2008 CAA; • February 11, 2008: AEWC 2008 CAA meeting with Barrow whalers in Barrow to present the proposed project and to gather feedback in support of a 2008 CAA; • February 28, 2008: AEWC 2008 CAA meeting in Barrow to discuss the 2008 CAA with the AEWC; • April 1, 2008: Kuukpikmiut Subsistence Oversight Panel, Inc. Meeting and the Nuiqsut POC Meeting/Open House in Nuiqsut to present the proposed project and to gather feedback; • April 2, 2008: NSB Planning Commission in Barrow to present the proposed project in support of a NSB Development Permit application; • April 14-16, 2008: Open Water Meeting in Anchorage to present the proposed project to NMFS and other attendees in support of the IHA application. The Open Water Meeting includes a forum for discussion of potential conflicts between industry activities and subsistence use activities. • May 8, 2008: Barrow POC Meeting/Open House in Barrow to present the proposed project and to gather feedback from the community; and • May 9, 2008: Nuiqsut POC Meeting/Open House in Nuiqsut to present the project revisions and gather feedback from the community. It should be noted that NMFS must make a determination under the MMPA that an activity would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence needs for marine mammals. While this includes usage of both cetaceans and pinnipeds, the primary impact by seismic activities is expected to be impacts from noise on bowhead whales during its westward fall feeding and migration period in the Beaufort Sea. NMFS has defined unmitigable adverse impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity:

(1)That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:

(i)causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas,

(ii)directly displacing subsistence users, or

(iii)placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and

(2)That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met (50 CFR 216.103). However, while a signed CAA allows NMFS to make a determination that the activity will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence use of marine mammals, if one or both parties fail to sign the CAA, then NMFS will make the determination that the activity will or will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals. This determination may require that the IHA contain additional mitigation measures in order for this decision to be made. Proposed Mitigation Measures The introduction of pulsed sounds generated by seismic airguns is the main source of potential impacts on marine mammal species and the focus of this request. The response of the animal depends on various factors, but short-term behavioral responses are the most likely to occur. No serious or lethal injuries are expected. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures described below will reduce the potential impacts to marine mammals. Several mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented in order to cause a minimal adverse impact upon affect marine mammal species. These include: • The seismic vessel will remain within 5 km (3 mi) of the coastline and is not expected to pass the state/Federal boundary line, avoiding bowhead whale migration routes; • In response to discussions with the AEWC, PGS has negotiated the following operational windows to further avoid potential impacts to migrating whales. The timing of the proposed survey would be divided into two parts. Data acquisition outside the barrier islands (Thetis, Spy, and Leavitt Islands), the deepest water in the survey area, would be performed first and would be completed by August 5. Data acquisition inside the barrier islands, with maximum water depth of approximately 4.6 m (15 ft), would then be conducted from August 5-September 15. No data acquisition would be conducted outside the barrier islands after August 5. • Although seismic operations are proposed to be conducted during the fall whale hunt (after August 25), they would not occur within the areas normally used by hunters from Barrow (Point Barrow) or Nuiqsut (Cross Island). The survey area is 60 km (37 mi) west of Cross Island (and downstream of the bowhead fall migration) and 260 km (160 mi) east of Point Barrow. • Although seismic operations are proposed to be conducted during the fall whale migration, activities would occur in shallow waters within the barrier islands that are not considered whale habitat. The barrier islands are also expected to act as an obstacle to sounds generated by seismic activities, effectively keeping sound propagation from entering the zone of migration. • MMOs will be stationed on source vessels to ensure that the airguns are not operated in close proximity to marine mammals and will be actively involved in vessel operations during all survey operations. • PGS has offered to hire Inupiat speakers to perform seismic work on each of the PGS vessels. As part of their duties, the Inupiat speakers will also keep watch for marine mammals and will communicate with the MMOs located on the source vessels. • PGS will participate in the Com Centers proposed to be operated in Barrow and Deadhorse. Com Centers enable vessel operators to be aware of and avoid marine mammal and subsistence activity in the area. Communications of vessel operations and transit will occur via telephones, the Internet, and very high frequency radios. • The proposed airgun energy source is of moderate size, reducing the ensonified zone and the impacts to marine mammals. • The airgun source will be acoustically measured from all directions and in varying water depths at the start of operations. Using this information, an avoidance radius will be determined within which any marine mammal sighting will cause immediate airgun shutdown. • Ramp up and soft start methods will be conducted while seismic operations are initiated. This is intended to alert marine mammals in the area so that they may swim away from the source before the full energy source is employed. • Shutdown safety radii of 203 m (0.13 mi) and 492 m (0.31 mi) for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively, will be monitored during operations to ensure that injurious “takes” are avoided. These radii will be adjusted accordingly based on the results of the acoustic measurements mentioned above. • PGS will participate in an offshore monitoring program that will take place from mid-August until mid- to late September in cooperation with Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc., (Pioneer) and ENI and in coordination with Shell Offshore, Inc. which includes:

(1)Monitor in-water sound near and distant from Pioneer's Oooguruk drill site, ENI's Spy Island drill pad, and vessel operations using four autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders (ASARs);

(2)Monitor and characterize sounds produced from shallow-depth seismic survey planned by PGS using ASARs and directional autonomous seafloor recorders (DASARs);

(3)Detect and localize marine mammal vocalizations using an array of DASAR's positioned north and northwest of the Pioneer and ENI projects; and

(4)Visually survey the coastal Beaufort Sea from an aircraft to search for bowhead whales and characterize behavior of those animals observed. Establishment and Monitoring of Safety Zones In-water sounds from support vessels and associated with the Pioneer and ENI projects will be measured and source levels determined. Primary vessels may include crew boats, tugs, and barges. A total of 12 vessels will be associated with the PGS seismic survey, many of these relatively small, outboard powered skiffs. Between all three operations, it is expected that sounds will be measured from 18-20 vessels. Most measurements will be made using JASCO Research's Ocean Bottom Hydrophones

(OBH)in early July with methods used previously (Zykov *et al.* , 2008b; Laurinolli *et al.* , 2008). Measurements will be made with a single OBH system positioned in 4.6-9 m (15-30 ft) of water with the vessel sailing along a line from 10-25 km (6-15.5 mi) away to directly over the OBH. The sail past is conducted at normal operating speed of the vessel. Some vessel measurement may be performed using the ASARs stationed near ODS and SID (instead of the OBHs). Sound source measurements will be made of the two PGS airgun arrays at two locations (inside and outside the barrier islands in early July and prior to seismic data acquisition). Both airgun array configurations will be measured at each location, leading to four separate measurements. The measurements will be made using four OBH systems (see PGS' application, Figure 2 in Appendix B). These recorders sample at 48 kHz, using a high-resolution 24-bit digitization systems. They can record autonomously for up to 3 days per deployment. The distances to the important sound level thresholds will vary strongly with operating water depth. In the shallowest depths of near 4 ft, sounds will be rapidly attenuated and the distances will be relatively small. The survey area outside the barrier islands reaches depths that support much better sound propagation, and ENI expects the 120-dB distance could be as great as 10-20 km (6-12 mi). The OBH placement should be made to correspond with the best pre-field estimates of the 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB re 1 μPa

(rms)thresholds. JASCO will consider previous sound source verification

(SSV)measurements near BP's Liberty prospect in similar water depths, combined with modeling to estimate the appropriate distances prior to the SSV measurements. The OBH deployment configuration distances will be determined as discussed previously. The optimal deployment configurations will be determined for both the inside barrier island and outside barrier island locations. The OBHs will be deployed and seismic vessels asked to shoot along pre-defined test tracks. The test tracks will be oriented in at least two directions to capture the directivity characteristics of the airgun arrays; airgun arrays typically produce greater sound energy perpendicular to the tow direction than in line with the tow direction. PGS will apply appropriate adjustments to the estimated safety zones of 203 m (0.13 mi) for the 190-dB isopleth and 492 m (0.31 mi) for the 180-dB isopleth. Results will be used for the implementation of mitigation measures to power down the sound source and reduce the size of the safety zones when required. Speed and Course Alterations If a marine mammal (in water) is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course would be changed in a manner that does not compromise safety requirements. The animal's activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the individual does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or power-down or shutdown of the airgun(s). Power-down Procedure A power-down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radii of the 190-dB and 180-dB zones are decreased to the extent that observed marine mammals are not in the applicable safety zone. Situations that would require a power-down are listed below.

(1)When the vessel is changing from one source line to another, one airgun or a reduced number of airguns is operated. The continued operation of one airgun or a reduced airgun array is intended to:

(a)alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area and

(b)retain the option of initiating a ramp up to full operations under poor visibility conditions.

(2)If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid the animal from entering the safety zone. As an alternative to a complete shutdown, the airguns may be powered- down before the animal is within the safety zone.

(3)If a marine mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns would be powered-down immediately if this is a reasonable alternative to a complete shutdown, to have the marine mammal outside the newly established safety zone that would be smaller due to reduced number of operating airguns. This decision will be made by the MMO and can be based on the results obtained from the acoustic measurements for the establishments of safety zones. Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it:

(1)Is visually observed to have left the safety zone;

(2)Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or

(3)Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes (large odontocetes do not occur within the study area). Shutdown Procedure A shutdown procedure involves the complete turn off of all airguns. Ramp-up procedures will be followed during resumption of full seismic operations. The operating airgun(s) will be shut down completely during the following situations:

(1)If a marine mammal approaches or enters the applicable safety zone, and a power- down is not practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 dB (rms; pinnipeds) or 180 dB (rms; cetaceans).

(2)If a marine mammal approaches or enters the estimated safety radius around the reduced source that will be used during a power-down.

(3)If a marine mammal is detected within the safety radius and a power down would not keep the animal outside the reduced new safety radius, the airguns will be shut-down. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety radius as described above for power-down procedures. Ramp-up Procedure A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a specified duration with no or reduced airgun operations. The specified duration depends on the speed of the source vessel, the size of the airgun array that is being used, and the size of the safety zone, but is often about 10 min. NMFS requires that, once ramp-up commences, the rate of ramp-up be no more than 6 dB per 5 min period. Ramp-up will likely begin with the smallest airgun, in this case, 80 in 3 . The precise ramp-up procedure has yet to be determined. A common procedure is to double the number of operating airguns at 5-min intervals. During the ramp-up, the safety zone for the full 8-gun array will be maintained. A ramp-up procedure can be applied only in the following situations:

(1)If, after a complete shutdown, the entire 180 dB safety zone has been visible for at least 30 min prior to the planned start of the ramp-up in either daylight or nighttime. If the entire safety zone is visible with vessel lights and/or night vision devices, then ramp-up of the airguns from a complete shutdown may occur at night.

(2)If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will either be alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away or may be detected by visual observations.

(3)If no marine mammals have been sighted within or near the applicable safety zone during the previous 15 min in either daylight or nighttime, provided that the entire safety zone was visible for at least 30 min. Proposed Monitoring and Reporting Plan PGS proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the seismic survey in order to implement the proposed mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA, and to meet any monitoring requirements agreed to as part of the POC/CAA. PGS will meet the requirements by using two techniques: use of MMOs and participating in an acoustics monitoring plan through ENI. The monitoring plan is described here. Vessel-based Visual Monitoring by MMOs PGS' approach to monitoring is to station two or more MMOs aboard each seismic vessel to document the occurrence of marine mammals near the vessel, to help implement mitigation requirements, and to record the reactions of marine mammals to the survey. At least one MMO, if not all, will be an Inupiat trained in collecting marine mammal data. Each MMO will, while on duty, scan the area of operation (using 8 to 10 power binoculars) for marine mammals, recording the species, location, distance from survey vessel, and behavior (and associated weather data) of all that are seen. Observer watches will last no more than 4 consecutive hours, and no observer will watch more than 12 total hours in a 24-hr day. Observation will occur while survey operations are conducted. (Use of night-scope for fall monitoring will be explored prior to the fall field season.) Most importantly, however, each MMO will determine that the safety radius is clear of marine mammals prior to operating the high-energy sound equipment, and each will have the authority to suspend active side-scan sonar or sleeve gun operations should a marine mammal be observed approaching the safety radius. NMFS will be provided with weekly reports of the marine mammal observations as long as the onboard communication systems allow. In addition to the marine mammal monitoring to be performed by the MMOs located on the source vessels, PGS has offered to hire Inupiat speakers to perform seismic work on each of the PGS vessels. As part of their duties, the Inupiat speakers will also keep watch for marine mammals and will communicate with the MMOs located on the source vessels. Acoustic Monitoring of Drillsite Activities and Marine Mammal Vocalizations Acoustic measurements of drillsite activities and marine mammal vocalizations in 2008 will be performed using Greeneridge's autonomous seafloor recorders. For monitoring the near-drillsite sounds, four omnidirectional ASARs (Greene *et al.* , 1997) will be used, which sample at a rate of 5 kHz and have an acoustic bandwidth of 10-2,200 Hz. The ASARs can record ambient and anthropogenic sounds and vocalizations from bowhead whales, beluga whales, seals, and walrus. For the whale-call acoustic array, five directional DASARs (Greene *et al.* , 2004; see Figure 3 in Appendix B of PGS' application) will be used, which have an acoustic bandwidth of 10-450 Hz. In addition to bowhead whale calls, the DASARs will also detect and record industrial sounds, including those produced by vessels and seismic airguns. Regarding the ability to detect ultra-low frequency sounds that might be produced from drilling, the DASAR and the ASAR can record sounds as low as 1 or 2 Hz but at reduced sensitivity relative to frequencies above 10 Hz. The DASARs will be modified versions of units (DASAR “b”) that were used for Shell's 2007 Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program and will be identical to those proposed for monitoring BP's Northstar Island and Shell's five DASAR arrays in 2008. The modification involves a new version of the sensor (a three-channel device). In total, nine recorders will be used for Pioneer/ENI in 2008; four ASARs will be deployed in the vicinity of the ODS and SID and five DASARs will be located approximately 13-20 km (8-12 mi) north of the drillsites in 9-15.2 m (30-50 ft) of water (see Figure 4 in Appendix B of PGS' application). The acoustic recorders will be deployed/retrieved using a workboat supplied by Pioneer/ENI. Recorders will be retrieved from a tag line and the grapple method. The recorders will be deployed in mid-August and then allowed to record as long as possible into September, taking weather factors (e.g., sea state and ice formation) into consideration. The NSB Wildlife Department will be informed prior to removing the recorders. The four ASARs will be placed near the two drillsites to monitor sounds produced from drilling (ODS only), vessel (ODS and SID), and construction activities (primarily SID). Figure 5 in Appendix B of PGS' application provides a finer scale resolution of the acoustic recorders in the vicinity of ODS and SID than in Figure 4. One ASAR will be placed approximately 0.4 km (0.25) mi from each ODS and SID. One ASAR will be placed 6.4 km (4 mi) north of ODS and one 0.6 km (1 mi) north of SID. Similar to the nearby Shell DASAR Site 1 and Site 2 arrays, the DASARs will be spaced 7 km (4.3 mi) from each other and will detect marine mammal vocalizations to the north and south of the array out to 10 to 15 km (6 to 9 mi) from any one recorder. The acoustic data collected during the summer 2008 near ODS and SID will be suitable to compute sound levels received from:

(1)heavy equipment and machinery operating on the drillsites;

(2)small vessels and crew change vessels operating around the ODS and SID and between Oliktok Point and the ODS;

(3)loaded and empty barges traversing to and from Oliktok Point and ODS and SID; and

(4)the process of holding the barges in place at the drillsites while offloading equipment and supplies. An important aspect to characterizing sounds and correlating them to specific activities will be to maintain an accurate record of all sound-producing activities in the project areas. Time-referenced information of vessel movements and construction activities at and around the drillsites will be required in order to interpret acoustic sound level data. This is especially important in order to determine whether measured sound levels are generated by activities at or near the drillsites. To acquire detailed position information from key sources of in-water sounds, Pioneer/ENI proposes to place GPS units capable of logging position data on selected project vessels during the open-water period. The vessel logs and GPS position data will be used to verify (or exclude) various sources of anthropogenic sounds that are detected on the acoustic recorders and to associate any visual observations of marine mammal behavior from aerial surveys with project activities. Pioneer/ENI will also maintain logs of equipment inventory and associated daily activities at ODS and SID and the drilling activity at ODS. Additional information on how the ASARs and DASARs will be utilized is found in Appendix B of the PGS application. Acoustic Monitoring of Seismic Survey and Ambient Sounds PGS will use an automated process developed by A. Thode of Scripps to detect airgun pulses in the DASAR data and compute the instantaneous peak pressure, the sound pressure level (rms), the sound exposure level, and the pulse duration. Background sound levels (between the pulses) are also characterized using this automated procedure. These measurements provide time series for the entire study period, expected to be from 4-6 weeks beginning in mid-August. Vessel sounds will be noted and their levels included in the background time series (Blackwell *et al.* , 2008). Aerial Surveys Working with NSB scientists in 2006, Pioneer developed an aerial survey program to assess the distribution of bowhead whales within 24-32 km (15-20 mi) of the Pioneer operation during fall whale migration. These surveys were done in 2006 and 2007 and were conducted with two dedicated observers from a Bell 412 helicopter (Reiser *et al.* , 2008; Williams *et al.* , 2008). For 2008, PGS proposes to collaborate with Shell to expand the temporal coverage of their aerial survey program, which is otherwise planned to start around September 7. These surveys are to be performed in support of Shell's shallow hazard surveys being planned from mid-September through October, 2008. PGS will work to expand the duration of these surveys to start August 25 and be conducted along the survey tracklines. Weather conditions permitting, surveys will be conducted 3 or more days per week beginning August 25 and continuing through as far into October as Shell continues its operation. The surveys will be conducted from a de Havilland Twin Otter following similar protocols used by Shell in the Beaufort Sea in 2006 and 2007. Survey tracklines will be spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and will run approximately 64.4 km (40 mi) in a north-south direction. Surveys will be conducted in good survey conditions (i.e., favorable weather and sea state). Four trained and experienced surveyors seated in the rear of the aircraft will make observations from the right and left sides of the airplane. The airplane will be operated by two pilots in the front seats who will also survey the area ahead of the aircraft. Standard aerial survey procedures used by LGL and others in many previous marine mammal projects will be followed, including those surveys completed for Shell in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in 2006 (Thomas *et al.* , 2007) and 2007 (Lyons *et al.* , 2008). Following these procedures will facilitate comparisons and (as appropriate) pooling of results with other datasets (e.g., sighting rates, whale group size and composition). The aircraft will be flown at 100-110 knots ground speed and at an altitude of 457 m (1500 ft). Aerial surveys at an altitude of 457 m (1500 ft) do not provide much information about seals but are suitable for both bowhead and beluga whales. The need for a 457 m (1500 ft) cloud ceiling will limit the dates and times when surveys can be flown. The surveys will follow a GPS-referenced tracklines. For each marine mammal sighting, the observer will not the species, number, size/age/sex class when determinable, activity, heading, swimming speed category (if traveling), sighting cue, ice conditions (type and percentage), and inclinometer reading. An inclinometer reading (angle from horizontal) will be taken when the animal's location is at a right angle to the side of the aircraft track, allowing calculation of lateral distance from the aircraft trackline. Transect information, sighting data, and environmental data will be entered into a GPS-linked data logger. Reporting A report on the preliminary results of the acoustic verification measurements, including as a minimum the measured 190- and 180-dB

(rms)radii of the airgun sources, will be submitted within 72-hrs after collection of those measurements at the start of the field season. This report will specify the distances of the safety zones that were adopted for the survey. A report on PGS' activities and on the relevant monitoring and mitigation results will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic survey. The report will describe the operations that were conducted, the measured sound levels, and the cetaceans and seals that were detected near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic and vessel-based marine mammal monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all whale and seal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). Marine mammal sightings will be reported at species level, however, especially during unfavorable environmental conditions (e.g., low visibility, high sea states) this will not always be possible. The number and circumstances of ramp-up, power-down, shutdown, and other mitigation actions will be reported. The report will also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential impact to marine mammals encountered during the survey. ESA NMFS has previously consulted under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of IHAs for seismic survey activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on June 16, 2006, regarding the effects of this action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The Opinion concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/BioOpinions/ARBOIII-2.pdf* . National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)In 2006, the MMS prepared Draft and Final Programmatic Environmental Assessments

(PEAs)for seismic surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the MMS PEA. On November 17, 2006 (71 FR 66912), NMFS and MMS announced that they were preparing a DPEIS in order to assess the impacts of MMS' annual authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to the U.S. oil and gas industry to conduct offshore geophysical seismic surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska and NMFS' authorizations under the MMPA to incidentally harass marine mammals while conducting those surveys. On March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15135), the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)noted the availability for comment of the NMFS/MMS DPEIS. Based upon several verbal and written requests to NMFS for additional time to review the DPEIS, EPA has twice announced an extension of the comment period until July 30, 2007 (72 FR 28044, May 18, 2007; 72 FR 38576, July 13, 2007). Because NMFS has been unable to complete the PEIS, it determined that the 2006 PEA would need to be updated in order to meet NMFS' NEPA requirements. This approach was warranted as it was reviewing five proposed Arctic seismic survey IHAs for 2008, well within the scope of the PEA's eight consecutive seismic surveys. To update the 2006 Final PEA, NMFS is currently preparing an EA which incorporates by reference the 2006 Final PEA and other related documents. The necessary NEPA analysis will be concluded prior to making a determination on the issuance of the IHA to PGS. Preliminary Determinations Based on the information provided in PGS' application, this document, and the MMS Final PEA, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of PGS conducting seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea in 2008 may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of six species of marine mammals, will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks, and that there will not be any unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence communities, provided the mitigation measures described previously in this document are implemented. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the short-term impact of conducting seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. While behavioral and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of seismic operations, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small (less than one percent of any of the estimated population sizes) and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document. In addition, no take by death and/or serious injury is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed above. No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near the planned area of operations during the season of operations. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed seismic activity by PGS in the Beaufort Sea in 2008 will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence uses of bowhead whales and other marine mammals. This determination is supported by the information in this **Federal Register** Notice, including:

(1)the fall bowhead whale hunt in the Beaufort Sea will either be governed by a CAA between PGS and the AEWC and village whaling captains or by mitigation measures contained in the IHA;

(2)the CAA or IHA conditions will significantly reduce impacts on subsistence hunters to ensure that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals;

(3)because ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June, although they are available year-round; however, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when these seals are typically harvested; and

(4)specific provisions to avoid interference with the seal hunts will be integrated into the survey in compliance with the CAA where applicable. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to PGS for conducting a seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea in 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 11, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-13650 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-06] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,

(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-06 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: May 5, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN17JN08.073 EN17JN08.074 EN17JN08.075 EN17JN08.076 [FR Doc. E8-13216 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)—Universal Interface and Information Technology Access; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 84.133E-6. *Dates:* *Applications Available:* June 17, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* July 9, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the RERC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by conducting advanced engineering research and development on innovative technologies that are designed to solve particular rehabilitation problems, or remove environmental barriers. RERCs also demonstrate and evaluate such technologies, facilitate service delivery system changes, stimulate the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and provide training opportunities. Additional information on the RERC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RERC* . *Priority:* The *Universal Interface and Information Technology Access* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Note: On February 1, 2008, we also published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6166) inviting applications for a number of competitions, including one using the *Universal Interface and Information Technology Access* priority. None of the applications we received for the *Universal Interface and Information Technology Access* competition announced in that notice were successful. Accordingly, through this notice, we are inviting applications for another competition using the *Universal Interface and Information Technology Access* priority. *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *RERC on Universal Interface and Information Technology Access* . *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3). *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.

(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.

(c)The notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132, 6144). Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education

(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $950,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $947,999-$950,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $950,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 1. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html* . To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov* . If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133E-6. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 125 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. Single spacing may be used for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 17, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on July 9, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:

(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the *Grants.gov* Apply site ( *Grants.gov* ), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications* . To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site. The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition, CFDA number 84.133E-6, is included in this project. We request your participation in *Grants.gov* . If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition—CFDA number 84.133E-6 at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search ( *e.g.* , search for 84.133, not 84.133E-6). Please note the following: • Your participation in *Grants.gov* is voluntary. • When you enter the *Grants.gov* site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by *Grants.gov* are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from *Grants.gov* , we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through *Grants.gov* . • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through *Grants.gov* that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the *Grants.gov* system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to *Grants.gov* at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf* . • To submit your application via *Grants.gov* , you must complete all steps in the *Grants.gov* registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include

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

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

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the *Grants.gov* 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via *Grants.gov* . In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from *Grants.gov* an automatic notification of receipt that contains a *Grants.gov* tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by *Grants.gov* only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from *Grants.gov* and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical* *Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through *Grants.gov* , please contact the *Grants.gov* Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the *Grants.gov* system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with *Grants.gov* , along with the *Grants.gov* Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the *Grants.gov* system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the *Grants.gov* system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to *Grants.gov* before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the *Grants.gov* system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail* . If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-6), 400, Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260 or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-6), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery* . If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-6), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V. 2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria listed in the application package. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html* . Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* To evaluate the overall success of its research program, NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly-awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments ( *e.g.* , new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The number of new or improved NIDRR-funded assistive and universally designed technologies, products, and devices transferred to industry for potential commercialization. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that include studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their annual performance reports in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)indicators, revisions, and methods appear on the NIDRR Program Review Web site: *http://www.neweditions.net/pr/commonfiles/pmconcepts.htm* . Grantees should consult this site on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:

(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:

(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: June 12, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-13641 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)—Accessible Public Transportation; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year

(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 84.133E-3. *Dates: Applications Available:* June 17, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* July 9, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the RERC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by conducting advanced engineering research and development on innovative technologies that are designed to solve particular rehabilitation problems, or remove environmental barriers. RERCs also demonstrate and evaluate such technologies, facilitate service delivery system changes, stimulate the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and provide training opportunities. Additional information on the RERC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RERC* . *Priority:* The *Accessible Public Transportation* priority is from the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Note: On February 1, 2008, we also published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 6166) inviting applications for a number of competitions, including one using the Accessible Public Transportation priority. None of the applications we received for the *Accessible Public Transportation* competition announced in that notice were successful. Accordingly, through this notice, we are inviting applications for another competition using the *Accessible Public Transportation* priority. *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *RERC on Accessible Public Transportation* . *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3). *Applicable Regulations:*

(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.

(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.

(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $950,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $947,999—$950,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $950,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 1. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html* . To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:

(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov* . If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133E-3. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 125 pages, using the following standards: • A “page“ is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. Single spacing may be used for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* June 17, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 1, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on July 9, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:

(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the *Grants.gov* . Apply site ( *Grants.gov* ), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV.6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications* . To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site. The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition, CFDA number 84.133E-3, is included in this project. We request your participation in *Grants.gov* . If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide *Grants.gov* Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition—CFDA number 84.133E-3 at *http://www.Grants.gov* . You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search ( *e.g.* , search for 84.133, not 84.133E-3). Please note the following: • Your participation in *Grants.gov* is voluntary. • When you enter the *Grants.gov* site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by *Grants.gov* are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from *Grants.gov,* we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the *Grants.gov* system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through *Grants.gov.* • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through *Grants.gov* that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the *Grants.gov* system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to *Grants.gov* at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via *Grants.gov.* , you must complete all steps in the *Grants.gov* registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include

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

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

(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the *Grants.gov* 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.gov.RegistrationBrochure.pdf).* You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via *Grants.gov.* In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from *Grants.gov* an automatic notification of receipt that contains a *Grants.gov.* tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by *Grants.gov* only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from *Grants.gov* and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through *Grants.gov* , please contact the *Grants.gov.* Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a *Grants.gov* Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the *Grants.gov* system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with *Grants.gov,* along with the *Grants.gov* Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the *Grants.gov* system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the *Grants.gov* system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to *Grants.gov* before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the *Grants.gov* system. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-3) 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260 or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-3) 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

(1)A private metered postmark.

(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery* . If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-3) 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V.2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria listed in the application package. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html* . Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* To evaluate the overall success of its research program, NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly-awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments ( *e.g.* , new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The number of new or improved NIDRR-funded assistive and universally designed technologies, products, and devices transferred to industry for potential commercialization. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that include studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their annual performance reports in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: June 12, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-13645 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC08-512-001, FERC-512] Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Submitted for OMB Review June 10, 2008. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier **Federal Register** notice of March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13536-13537), and has made this notation in its submission to OMB. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by July 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* and include the OMB Control No. (1902-0073) as a point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34, Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings, such comments should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC08-512-001. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at ( *http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp* ). To file the document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on Documents & Filing, E-Filing ( *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp* ), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the “eLibrary” link. For user assistance, contact *fercolinesupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676 or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at

(202)502-8415, by fax at

(202)273-0873, and by e-mail at *michael.miller@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Abstract:* The information collected under the requirements of FERC-512, “Application for Preliminary Permit” (OMB No. 1902-0073) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of sections 4(f), 5 and 7 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. sections 797, 798 & 800. The purpose of obtaining a preliminary permit is to maintain priority of the application for a license for a hydropower facility while the applicant conducts surveys to prepare maps, plans, specifications and estimates; conducts engineering, economic and environmental feasibility studies; and making financial arrangements. The conditions under which the priority will be maintained are set forth in each permit. During the term of the permit, no other application for a preliminary permit or application for a license submitted by another party can be accepted. The term of the permit is three years. The information collected under the designation FERC-512 is in the form of a written application for a preliminary permit which is used by Commission staff to determine an applicant's qualifications to hold a preliminary permit, review the proposed hydro development for feasibility and to issue a notice of the application in order to solicit public and agency comments. The Commission implements these mandatory filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)under 18 CFR 4.31-33, 4.81-.83. *Action:* The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data. *Burden Statement:* Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as: No. of respondents Annual responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total annual burden hours

(1)×

(2)×

(3)200 1 37 7,400 Estimated cost burden to respondents is $508,000; ( *i.e.* , 7 hours @$200 an hour (legal) + 30 hours @$39 an hour (technical) × 200) per year equals $514,000). The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide the information including:

(1)Reviewing instructions;

(2)developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information;

(3)adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

(4)training personnel to respond to a collection of information;

(5)searching data sources;

(6)completing and reviewing the collection of information; and

(7)transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information. The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than anyone particular function or activity. Comments are invited on:

(1)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;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13533 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2266-096] Nevada Irrigation District; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of Licensing Proceeding and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests June 10, 2008. a. *Type of Filing:* Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Licensing Proceeding. b. *Project No.:* 2266-096. c. *Dated Filed:* April 11, 2008. d. *Submitted By:* Nevada Irrigation District. e. *Name of Project:* Yuba-Bear Project. f. *Location:* The Yuba-Bear Project is located on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada on the Middle Yuba River, Canyon Creek, Fall Creek, Rucker Creek and Bear River, in Nevada, Placer and Sierra counties, California. A large portion of the project is located on the Tahoe National Forest. Some of the project is located on federally-owned land managed by the Bureau of Land Management as part of the Sierra Resource Management Area. The project consists of four developments—Bowman, Dutch Flat, Chicago Park, and Rollins—which, in total, include: 13 main dams with a combined gross storage capacity of 207,865 acre-feet of water; four water conduits; five diversion dams; four powerhouses with a combined installed capacity of 79.32 megawatts; one 9.0-mile-long, 60-kilovolt transmission line; and appurtenant facilities and structures, including recreation facilities. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's Regulations. h. *Applicant Contact:* Ron Nelson, General Manager, Nevada Irrigation District, 1036 West Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945,

(530)271-6824 or e-mail *nelson@nid.dst.ca.us.* i. *FERC Contact:* John Mudre at 202-502-8902 or e-mail *john.mudre@ferc.gov.* j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See,* 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. *With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:*

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

(b)the 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 Nevada Irrigation District as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. m. Nevada Irrigation District 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, of for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. 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. o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Yuba-Bear Project) and number (P-2266-096), and bear the heading “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by August 11, 2008. Comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CF 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-filing” link. p. Our intent is to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for which the planned meetings will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements. We anticipate preparing a multi-project EIS that would also consider the proposed relicensing of Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2310-173) and Rollins Transmission Line Project (FERC No. 2784-003). Because these three projects are located in the same watersheds and have the same license expiration dates, NID and PG&E have decided, to the extent practical, to cooperate and coordinate on their relicensing efforts. The scoping meetings and site visits discussed below will address all three projects. Scoping Meetings Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows: Daytime Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 9 a.m. *Location:* Auburn Holiday Inn Hotel, 120 Grass Valley Highway, Auburn, CA. Evening Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7 p.m. *Location:* Gold Miners Inn Holiday Inn Express Hotel, 121 Bank Street, Grass Valley, CA. Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list on May 22, 2008. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link. Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2

(SD2)may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as the list of issues identified through the scoping process. Site Visit The licensees and Commission staff will visit the project facilities on Tuesday, June 17, Wednesday, June 18, and Thursday, June 19, 2008, starting at 8 a.m. and ending at or about 5 a.m. Participants should meet by the start time as follows:

(1)On June 17at the Discovery Trail in Bear Valley;

(2)on June 18 at the Alta Service Center; and

(3)on June 19 at Halsey Forebay. Participants are responsible for their own transportation; four-wheel-drive vehicles are recommended. Anyone interested in attending the site visit should contact Mr. James Lynch at

(916)564-4214. Meeting Objectives *At the scoping meetings, staff will:*

(1)Initiate scoping of the issues;

(2)review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives;

(3)review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs;

(4)review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and

(916)386-5580, *frs3@pge.com* . i. *FERC Contact:* John Mudre at 202-502-8902 or e-mail *john.mudre@ferc.gov* . j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* , 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:

(a)The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402 and

(b)the 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 Pacific Gas and Electric Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. m. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 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, of for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. 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. o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Rollins Transmission Line Project) and number (P-2784-003), and bear the heading “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by August 11, 2008. Comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *See* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-filing” link. p. Our intent is to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for which the planned meetings will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements. We anticipate preparing a multi-project EIS that would also consider the proposed relicensing of Nevada Irrigation District's Yuba-Bear Project (FERC No. 2266-096) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2310-173). Because these three projects are located in the same watersheds and have the same license expiration dates, NID and PG&E have decided, to the extent practical, to cooperate and coordinate on their relicensing efforts. The scoping meetings and site visits discussed below will address all three projects. Scoping Meetings Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows: Daytime Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 9 a.m. *Location:* Auburn Holiday Inn Hotel, 120 Grass Valley Highway, Auburn, California. Evening Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7 p.m. *Location:* Gold Miners Inn Holiday Inn Express Hotel, 121 Bank Street, Grass Valley, California. Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list on May 22, 2008. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link. Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2

(SD2)may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as the list of issues identified through the scoping process. Site Visit The licensees and Commission staff will visit the project facilities on Tuesday, June 17, Wednesday, June 18, and Thursday, June 19, 2008, starting at 8 a.m. and ending at or about 5 p.m. Participants should meet by the start time as follows:

(1)On June 17 at the Discovery Trail in Bear Valley;

(2)on June 18 at the Alta Service Center; and

(916)564-4214. Meeting Objectives At the scoping meetings, staff will:

(1)Initiate scoping of the issues;

(2)review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives;

(3)review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs;

(415)973-4481, or e-mail *slp2@pge.com.* i. *FERC Contact:* John Mudre at

(202)502-8902 or e-mail *john.mudre@ferc.gov.* j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* , 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:

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

(b)the 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 Pacific Gas and Electric Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. m. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 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, of for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. 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. o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Drum-Spaulding Project) and number (P-2310-173), and bear the heading “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by August 11, 2008. Comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-filing” link. p. Our intent is to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for which the planned meetings will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements. We anticipate preparing a multi-project EIS that would also consider the proposed relicensing of Nevada Irrigation District's Yuba-Bear Project (FERC No. 2266-096) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Rollins Transmission Line Project (FERC No. 2784-003). Because these three projects are located in the same watersheds and have the same license expiration dates, NID and PG&E have decided, to the extent practical, to cooperate and coordinate on their relicensing efforts. The scoping meetings and site visits discussed below will address all three projects. Scoping Meetings Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows: Daytime Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 9 a.m., *Location:* Auburn Holiday Inn Hotel, 120 Grass Valley Highway, Auburn, CA. Evening Scoping Meeting *Date and Time:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7 p.m., *Location:* Gold Miners Inn Holiday Inn Express Hotel, 121 Bank Street, Grass Valley, California. Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list on May 22, 2008. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link. Follow the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document 2

(SD2)may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and schedule, as well as the list of issues identified through the scoping process. Site Visit The licensees and Commission staff will visit the project facilities on Tuesday, June 17, Wednesday, June 18, and Thursday, June 19, 2008, starting at 8 a.m. and ending at or about 5 p.m. Participants should meet by the start time as follows:

(1)On June 17 at the Discovery Trail in Bear Valley;

(2)on June 18 at the Alta Service Center; and

(916)564-4214. Meeting Objectives At the scoping meetings, staff will:

(1)Initiate scoping of the issues;

(2)review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives;

(3)review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs;

(5)discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document. Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document. Meeting Procedures The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13538 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 June 10, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-86-000. *Applicants:* Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., TPF Generation Holdings, LLC, Holland Energy, LLC. *Description:* Wabash Valley Power Association (Inc), *et al.* submits an Addendum to its Application for Authorization Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets under section 203. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-5050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-99-000. *Applicants:* Noble Environmental Power. *Description:* Joint Application of Noble Environmental Power, LLC for Authorization of Proposed Transaction under Section 203, and Request for Expedited Consideration, Waiver of Certain Filing Requirements. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-5046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-75-000. *Applicants:* Notrees Windpower, LP. *Description:* Self Certification Notice of Exempt Wholesale Generator of Notrees Windpower, LP. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080604-5073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER98-1767-011; ER07-501-007; ER99-1695-011; ER99-2984-010. *Applicants:* Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd.; Birchwood Power Partners, L.P.; Elwood Energy, LLC; Green Country Energy, LLC. *Description:* Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of J-Power North America Holdings, Ltd. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-5136. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-719-019; ER97-2801-020; ER99-2156-013. *Applicants:* Cordova Energy Company LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* Cordova Energy Company LLC *et al.* submits information regarding PaCificCorp's Blundell Geothermal II Generating Facility. *Filed Date:* 06/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-2830-003. *Applicants:* Davison Van Cleve, PC. *Description:* Application of Roseburg Forest Products for Finding as a Category 1 Seller of Davison Van Cleve, PC. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-5124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-1903-008. *Applicants:* FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P. *Description:* FPL Energy Marcus Hook LP submits a notice of change in status. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0219. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-1903-008. *Applicants:* FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P. *Description:* FPL Energy Marcus Hook LP submits a notice of change in status. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0219. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-9-013; ER98-2157-014. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Sixth Revised Sheet 1 *et al.* to its FERC Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6, effective 9/18/07. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-45-002. *Applicants:* Horizon Power & Light LLC. *Description:* Horizon Power & Light LLC submits the Amended Updated Market Power Analysis. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-0070. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-781-001. *Applicants:* Central Illinois Light Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company, Illinois Power Company. *Description:* The Ameren Illinois Utilities jointly submit a compliance filing of an executed Electric Resource Sharing Agreement for Capacity. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0006. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-832-001. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* Notice of Withdrawal of Tariff Sheets re ISO New England. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-5112. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-848-001. *Applicants:* GearyEnergy, LLC. *Description:* GearyEnergy, LLC submits a revised application for market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0225. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1025-001. *Applicants:* The Connecticut Light and Power Company *Description:* The Connecticut Light and Power Co. submits Amendment No. 2 to the Interconnection and Operation Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0224. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1028-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Second Revised Sheet 11 and 1 to the Wholesale Electric Service Agreement commencing 2/1/88, designated First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 170 between Kansas Gas and Electric Company etc. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080603-0097. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1030-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc & Kansas Gas & Electric Co submits Second Revised Sheets 9 & 1 to the Wholesale Electric Service Agreement commencing 2/1/88, designated First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 169 w/City of La Harpe, KS. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080603-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1057-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits corrected pages B.1 and B.1.1 and requests that the corrected pages replace those included in the original filing made on 5/30/08. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0220. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1065-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to Schedule 12 Appendix of the PJM Tariff to include cost responsibility assignments for four baseline upgrades that will operate at or above 500 kV, etc. *Filed Date:* 06/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1066-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool Participants Committee. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc and New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits First Revised Sheet 7307D et al and supporting testimony of Peter K Wong. *Filed Date:* 06/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1067-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of the AEP Operating Companies submits the Third Revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1425 with the Village of Plymouth. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0046. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1068-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed interconnection service agreement with Providence Heights Wind, LLC *et al* . *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080605-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1070-000. *Applicants:* Coral Power, L.L.C. *Description:* Coral Power, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of Fourth Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1, effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1071-000. *Applicants:* Coral Energy Management, LLC. *Description:* Coral Energy Management, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0004. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1072-000. *Applicants:* Nevada Power Company. *Description:* Nevada Power Co. submits a Notice of Termination of the Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1073-000. *Applicants:* Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-op. *Description:* Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc submits its annual Informational Filing setting forth updated approved costs for member-owned generation resources for 2008. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1074-000. *Applicants:* The Midwest Independent Transmission Sys. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits an executed Small Generator Interconnection Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1075-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits proposed amendments to the agreement first executed on 11/17/06 with Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-0115. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1076-000. *Applicants:* The American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits a second revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1429 with Village of Sycamore. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-0112. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1077-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co. submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with CPV Sentinel, LLC *et al* . *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1078-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC submits an amended Interconnection and Operating Agreement between RSC Cogen, LLC and EGS. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0204. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1079-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc submits an amended Interconnection and Operating Agreement between LSP Energy Limited Partnership and EMI. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0205. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1086-000. *Applicants:* Saracen Energy MB L.P. *Description:* Saracen Energy MB LP submits its Cancellation of Rate Schedule and gives notice that Rate Schedule FERC 1 effective 7/1/07, is being cancelled. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0213. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1088-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a revised interconnection service agreement and revised construction service agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1089-000. *Applicants:* Port Washington Generating Station LLC. *Description:* Port Washington Generating Station LLC notifies FERC of the termination of Rate Schedule FERC 1 under which PWGS was authorized to sell test power to Wisconsin Electric Power Company etc. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0214. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1089-000. *Applicants:* Port Washington Generating Station LLC. *Description:* Port Washington Generating Station LLC notifies FERC of the termination of Rate Schedule FERC 1 under which PWGS was authorized to sell test power to Wisconsin Electric Power Company etc. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0214. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1090-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff and Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0215. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1091-000. *Applicants:* West Valley Leasing Company, LLC. *Description:* West Valley Leasing Company, LLC submits Notice of Cancellation of its market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become effective 6/10/08. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0216. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1092-000. *Applicants:* The American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits a second revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service agreement 1421 with Village of Cygnet. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0218. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1093-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits notices of termination for two Special Facilities Agreements with City and County of San Francisco. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0217. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-52-000. *Applicants:* Monongahela Power Company. *Description:* Application of Monongahela Power Company under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization under Section 204(a) to issue up to $410 Million in First Mortgage Bonds or Other Long-Term Debt Instruments. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080609-5117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 30, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings: *Docket Numbers:* FC08-6-000. *Applicants:* SunEdison International, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self Certification of Foreign Utility Company, Status of SunEdison International, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-5121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA08-13-003. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits tariff revisions in compliance to FERC's 5/7/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0223. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 27, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-88-002. *Applicants:* Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Pro, Florida Power Corp. d/b/a Progress Energy, Progress Energy, Inc. *Description:* Order No. 890 OATT Filing of Carolina Power & Light Company and Florida Power Corporation. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080604-5069. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 25, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13559 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 11, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP99-518-107. *Applicants:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation. *Description:* Gas Transmission Northwest Corp submits Sixteenth Revised Sheet 24 and Fifth Revised Sheet 28 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-A. *Filed Date:* 06/09/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0232. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP07-570-001. RP07-695-001. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation submits Substitute Sixty-First Revised Sheet 5 *et al.* to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective 10/1/07 and 11/1/07. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0097. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-317-001. *Applicants:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation. *Description:* Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits Third Revised Sheet 489 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, proposed to become effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-338-001. *Applicants:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. *Description:* Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Thirteenth revised Sheet 405C and Original Sheet 405C.01 for inclusion in Tennessee's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0133. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 *Docket Numbers:* RP08-402-000. *Applicants:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. *Description:* Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits Fifth Revised Sheet 804 of its Gas Tariff Sixth Revised Volume 1, to become effective 7/7/08. *Filed Date:* 06/06/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080606-0134. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP08-54-003. *Applicants:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. *Description:* Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits compliance filing to cancel Dynegy Marketing and Trade capacity entitlements. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080530-5030. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13560 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings June 11, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-94-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Seeking Authorization for the Acquisition of Jurisdictional Facilities. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080530-4036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 20, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-98-000. *Applicants:* Nevada Power Company, Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC. *Description:* Nevada Power Company & Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC's application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional assets. *Filed Date:* 06/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0275. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-100-000. *Applicants:* Solios Power LLC. *Description:* Application for authorization for disposition of jurisdictional facilities and request for expedited action of Solios Power, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0228. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1084-000. *Applicants:* Evergreen Community Power, LLC. *Description:* Evergreen Community Power, LLC submits Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority of ECP. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0210. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1085-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric Company submits proposed changes to its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080610-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 26, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13562 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-72-000] Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Des Plaines Project June 10, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment

(EA)of the natural gas compressor station proposed by Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border) in the above-referenced docket. The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of Northern Border's proposed Des Plaines Project, consisting of a new 1,600 horsepower compressor station, meter station, and interconnect facilities at a site along Northern Border's existing pipeline system in Will County, Illinois. The Des Plaines Project would enable Northern Border to receive natural gas from ANR Pipeline Company, for transport to a delivery point on Northern Border's pipeline system. The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,

(202)502-8371. Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, interested individuals, newspapers, libraries, and parties to this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. 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. If you are filing written comments, please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded: • Send an original and two copies of your comments to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Reference Docket No. CP08-72-000; • Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 3, PJ-11.3; and • Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC, on or before July 10, 2008. Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). 1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. 1 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing comments electronically. Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits 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 for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which 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. Go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13532 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-5728-000] Kroboth, Michael E.; Notice of Filing June 10, 2008. Take notice that on May 28, 2008, Michael E. Kroboth filed an application to hold interlocking positions pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act and Part 45 of the regulations of the Commission, 18 CFR Part 45 (2007). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 18, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13534 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-5737-000] Volk, Stephen R.; Notice of Filing June 10, 2008. Take notice that on June 6, 2008, Stephen R. Volk filed a notice of resignation from holding interlocking positions, pursuant to Part 45 of the regulations of the Commission, 18 CFR Part 45.5. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13535 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD08-9-000] Review of Wholesale Electricity Markets; Second Notice of Conference and Agenda June 10, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a notice announcing a conference in this proceeding, to be held on July 1, 2008. As mentioned in that notice, the Commission has invited senior management and market monitors from the jurisdictional regional transmission organizations

(RTOs)and independent system operators

(ISOs)to provide a review of the current and future state of regional wholesale electricity markets. Members of the Commission's staff will provide an overview of the wholesale electricity markets outside of RTOs and ISOs. Attached is the agenda for the conference. The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room (2-C) from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. (EDT). All interested persons are invited, and there is no registration required. This conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. It will also be web-cast. Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the conference. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, by phone, or via satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast, or who need information on making arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at *http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu* and click on “FERC”. 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. Questions about the conference should be directed to Saida Shaalan by e-mail at *Saida.Shaalan@FERC.gov* or by phone at 202-502-8278. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Agenda 9:30 Opening Remarks. 9:45 *ISO New England, Inc.,* Gordon Van Welie, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hung-po Chao, Director, Market Monitoring. *New York Independent System Operator* , Karen Antion, Interim Chief Executive Officer, David Patton, President, Potomac Economics. *PJM Independent System Operator, Inc.* , W. Terry Boston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Bowring, Manager, Market Monitoring Unit. 12 Break. 1 * California Independent System Operator* , Yakout Mansour, President and Chief Executive Officer, Keith Casey, Director, Department of Market Monitoring, Frank Wolak, Chairman, Market Surveillance Committee. 1:45 *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator* , T. Graham Edwards, President and Chief Executive Officer, David Patton, President, Potomac Economics. *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.,* Nick Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, Richard Dillon, Director, Market Development and Analysis. 3:15 South and West Regions, Charles Whitmore, Senior Market Advisor, Division of Energy Market Oversight, Office of Enforcement. 4 Adjourn. [FR Doc. E8-13539 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of FERC Staff Attendance At Southwest Power Pool Independent Coordinator of Transmission

(ICT)Stakeholders' Policy Committee Meeting June 10, 2008. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. ICT Stakeholders Policy Committee Meeting June 19, 2008 (9 a.m.-3 p.m. CST), Sheraton North Hilton, 15700 JFK Boulevard, Houston, TX 77032. *The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:* *Docket No. EL07-52: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *Entergy Services, Inc.* *Docket No. OA07-32:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER05-1065:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. EL00-66: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *Entergy.* *Docket No. EL95-33: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *Entergy.* *Docket No. ER00-2854: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *Entergy.* *Docket No. EL05-15: Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Corp.* v. *Entergy Arkansas, Inc.* *Docket No. ER06-1555:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-845:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-844:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-885:* Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC. *Docket No. ER03-583:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-879:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER01-2214:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER07-628:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. *Docket No. ER07-629:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. *Docket No. ER07-630:* Entergy Arkansas, Inc. *Docket No. EL08-50: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *System Energy Resources.* *Docket No. EL08-51: Louisiana Public Service Commission* v. *Entergy Services, Inc.* *Docket No. EL08-59: ConocoPhillips* v. *Entergy Services, Inc.* *Docket No. EL08-60: Union Electric* v. *Entergy Services, Inc.* *Docket No. ER08-750:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-751:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-752:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. OA08-92:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. OA08-75:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-572:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-927:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. OA08-59:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER07-1252:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. EL03-230: ExxonMobil* v. *Entergy.* *Docket No. ER08-774:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-1006:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-1040:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-1041:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-1056:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Docket No. ER08-1057:* Entergy Services, Inc. These meetings are open to the public. For more information, contact Amy Demetry, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at

(202)502-6090 or *Amy.Demetry@ferc.gov.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13536 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0716; FRL-8580-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Data Submission; EPA ICR No. 1139.08, OMB No. 2070-0033 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

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

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection activity and its expected burden and costs. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0716 to

(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *oppt.ncic@epa.gov* or by mail to: Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Cunningham, Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408-M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 14, 2007 (72 FR 64075), EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no substantive comments during the comment period. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0716 which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Data Submission. *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1139.08, OMB Control No. 2070-0033. *ICR Status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA)is designed to assure that chemicals that may pose serious risks to human health or the environment undergo testing by manufacturers or processors, and that the results of such testing are made available to EPA. EPA uses the information collected under the authority of TSCA section 4 to assess risks associated with the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of a chemical, and to support any necessary regulatory action with respect to that chemical. EPA must assure that appropriate tests are performed on a chemical if it decides:

(1)That a chemical being considered under TSCA section 4(a) may pose an “unreasonable risk” or is produced in “substantial” quantities that may result in substantial or significant human exposure or substantial environmental release of the chemical;

(2)that additional data are needed to determine or predict the impacts of the chemical's manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal; and

(3)that testing is needed to develop such data. Rules and consent orders under TSCA section 4 require that one manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical perform the specified testing and report the results of that testing to EPA. TSCA section 4 also allows a manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical to apply for an exemption from the testing requirement if that testing will be or has been performed by another party. This information collection applies to reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with the information that EPA requires industry to provide in response to TSCA section 4 test rules, consent orders, test rule exemptions and other data submissions. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 790). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 232 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are persons who manufacture, process or import, use, distribute or dispose of one or more specified chemical substances. *Frequency of Collection:* On occasion. *Estimated No. of Respondents:* 58. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 151,962 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $5,845,639. *Changes in Burden Estimates:* There is a net decrease of 51,052 hours (from 203,014 hours to 151,962 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that currently in the OMB inventory. This decrease reflects EPA's revised estimates of the number of test rules and consent orders that the Agency expects to issue in the future, as well as revised estimates of the amount of testing still to be done under EPA's HPV Challenge program. The Supporting Statement includes detailed analyses of these revised estimates. This change is an adjustment. Dated: June 9, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-13612 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8580-4] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund

(202)566-1682, or e-mail at *westlund.rick@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request

(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses To Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR Number 1550.07; Conflict of Interest Rule #1 (Renewal); was approved 05/09/2008; OMB Number 2030-0023; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 0186.11; NESHAP for Vinyl Chloride (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 61, subpart F; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0071; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1125.05; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 61, subpart D; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0394; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1681.06; NESHAP for Epoxy Resin and Non-Nylon Polyamide Production (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart W; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0290; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1722.05; Emission Certification and Compliance Requirements for Marine Spark-ignition Engines (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 91, and 40 CFR part 805; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0321; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1367.08; Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline Volatility; in 40 CFR 80.27; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0178; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2258.01; PM 2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule (Final Rule); in 40 CFR 51.100; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0611; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1676.05; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority (Renewal); in 40 CFR 35, 40 CFR part 49, 40 CFR part 50, and 40 CFR part 81; was approved 05/15/2008; OMB Number 2060-0306; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1826.04; Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (Renewal); in 40 CFR 89.102 and 40 CFR part 1039; was approved 05/16/2008; OMB Number 2060-0369; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2260.02; Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; was approved 05/16/2008; OMB Number 2090-0029; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 0820.10; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal); in 40 CFR 262.34, 262.40(c), 262.43, 262.44(c), 262.53-57, 262.60, 265.190-193, and 265.196; was approved 05/22/2008; OMB Number 2050-0035; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2020.03; Federal Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 49, subpart M; was approved 05/23/2008; OMB Number 2060-0558; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 2130.03; Transportation Conformity Determinations for Federally Funded and Approved Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; was approved 05/23/2008; OMB Number 2060-0561; expires 05/31/2011. EPA ICR Number 1596.07; Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP)Program (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 82, subpart G; was approved 06/05/2008; OMB Number 2060-0226; expires 06/30/2011. EPA ICR Number 1655.06; Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 80, subpart G; was approved 06/04/2008; OMB Number 2060-0275; expires 06/30/2011. Dated: June 6, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-13613 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-2006-0735; FRL-8580-6] Announcement of Availability for Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard Review AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: On or about June 17, 2008, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA will make available for public review and comment a number of technical documents that discuss monitoring issues being addressed in EPA's review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead. These technical documents will be used as part of a peer review and consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring & Methods

(AAMM)Subcommittee (Subcommittee). DATES: Comments on the technical documents must be received on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. • *Fax:* Fax your comments to: 202-566-9744, Attention Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. • *Mail:* Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* , or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is

(202)566-1742; fax

(202)566-9744. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Cavender, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (mail code C304-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail: Cavender.kevin@epa.gov; telephone:

(919)541-2364; fax:

(919)541-1903. SUPPLEMENTARY 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. B. Background Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Lead is one of six criteria pollutants for which EPA has established air quality criteria and NAAQS. Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for lead. As part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is considering revising the associated monitoring requirements for lead (contained in 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58). On December 12, 2007, an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR)was published (72 FR 71488). The ANPR identified a number of potential revisions to the monitoring requirements. A review of the ANPR was conducted by CASAC in December 2007, and a final report was submitted January 22, 2008 (EPA-CASAC-08-007). A consultation with the CASAC AAMM Subcommittee was held on March 25, 2008, to discuss the associated monitoring issues (73 FR 11113). A proposed rule was published May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29184). The technical documents discuss the specifications and rationale for a lead in PM 10 (Pb-PM 10 ) Federal Reference Method

(FRM)and criteria and testing procedures for either a lead in TSP (Pb-TSP) or Pb-PM 10 Federal Equivalency Method (FEM). The technical documents will be available online at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/casacinf.html.* The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC AAMM Subcommittee by means of a peer review and consultation at an upcoming public teleconference of the CASAC AAMM Subcommittee. A separate **Federal Register** notice will inform the public of the date and phone number for the public teleconference. Following the CASAC AAMM Subcommittee public teleconference, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC AAMM Subcommittee and the public in preparing the final revisions to the lead monitoring requirements as part of the lead NAAQS rulemaking. Dated: June 11, 2008. Mary E. Henigin, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-13619 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8580-8] Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final action identifying water quality limited segments and associated pollutants in Arkansas to be listed pursuant to Clean Water Act

(CWA)Section 303(d), and request for public comment. Section 303(d) requires that states submit and EPA approve or disapprove lists of waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. On June 6, 2008, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Arkansas' 2006 303(d) submittal. Specifically, EPA approved Arkansas' listing of 321 water body-pollutant combinations, and associated priority rankings. EPA took neither an approval or disapproval action on 36 waters listed for beryllium. EPA disapproved Arkansas' decisions not to list 79 water body-pollutant combinations. EPA identified these additional water body pollutant-combinations along with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2006 Section 303(d) List. EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its final decisions to add water body pollutant-combinations to Arkansas' 2006 Section 303(d) List, as required by EPA's Public Participation regulations (40 CFR Part 25). EPA will consider public comments and if necessary amend its final action on the additional water body pollutant-combinations identified for inclusion on Arkansas' Final 2006 Section 303(d) List. DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the decisions should be sent to Diane Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-2145, facsimile

(214)665-7373, or e-mail: *smith.diane@epa.gov.* Oral comments will not be considered. Copies of the documents which explain the rationale for EPA's decisions and a list of the 79 water quality limited segments for which EPA disapproved Arkansas' decision not to list can be obtained at EPA Region 6's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/tmdl.htm,* or by writing or calling Ms. Smith at the above address. Underlying documents from the administrative record for these decisions are available for public inspection at the above address. Please contact Ms. Smith to schedule an inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Smith at

(214)665-2145. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify those waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are required to establish TMDLs according to a priority ranking. EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7). Consistent with EPA's regulations, Arkansas submitted to EPA its listing decisions under Section 303(d) on April 28, 2008. On June 6, 2008, EPA approved Arkansas' listing of 321 water body-pollutant combinations and associated priority rankings. EPA took neither an approval or disapproval action on 36 waters listed for beryllium. EPA disapproved Arkansas' decisions not to list 79 water body-pollutant combinations. EPA identified these additional water body pollutant-combinations along with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2006 Section 303(d) List. EPA solicits public comment on its identification of 79 additional water body-pollutant combinations for inclusion on Arkansas' 2006 Section 303(d) List. Dated: June 6, 2008. Miguel I. Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6. [FR Doc. E8-13616 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8580-9; EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056] Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed permit issuance and Notice of Public Hearing. SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are proposing an NPDES Vessel General Permit

(VGP)to cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 feet in length and an NPDES Recreational General Permit

(RGP)to cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. This action is in response to a District Court ruling that vacates, as of September 30, 2008, a long-standing EPA regulation that excludes discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. *Nw. Envt'l Advocates et al.* v. *EPA,* 2005 WL 756614 (N.D. Cal.). Although EPA has filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as a practical matter, the Agency cannot simply await the outcome of that appeal. This is because if the District Court's order remains unchanged, as of September 30, 2008, discharges of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of a vessel that had formerly been exempted from NPDES permitting by the regulation will be subject to the prohibition in CWA section 301(a) against the discharge of pollutants without a permit. EPA solicited information and data on discharges incidental to normal vessel operations to assist in developing these proposed NPDES permits in a **Federal Register** Notice published June 21, 2007 (72 FR 32421). The majority of information and data in response to that notice came from seven different groups: Individual citizens, commercial fishing representatives, commercial shipping groups, environmental or outdoor recreation groups, the oil and gas industry, recreational boating-related businesses, and state governments. EPA considered all such resulting information and data along with other available information in developing the two proposed vessel permits. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 for the VGP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov.* • *Mail:* Original and three copies to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA Headquarters West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* A copy of the draft RGP and VGP and their respective accompanying fact sheets are available at *http://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 for the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the proposed commercial vessel NPDES general permit, including on how to obtain copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet, contact Ryan Albert at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or at tel. 202-564-0763; or e-mail: *CommercialVesselPermit@epa.gov.* For further information on the proposed recreational vessel NPDES general permit, including on how to obtain copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet, contact Juhi Saxena at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or at tel. 202-564-0719; or e-mail: *RecreationalVesselPermit@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of These Documents and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket.* EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 for the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP. The official public docket is the collection of materials, including the administrative record for the draft permit required by 40 CFR 124.9, that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-2426. In addition, the comments and information that EPA received in response to its June 21, 2007, **Federal Register** notice can be found in the public docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0483. 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/.* An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)found at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may use the FDMS to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once at the Web site, enter the appropriate Docket ID No. in the “Search” box to view the docket. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section I.A.1. 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 all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on computer disks mailed to EPA, mark the surface of the disk as CBI. Also identify electronically the specific information contained in the disk or that you claim is CBI. In addition to one complete version of the specific information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public document. 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 permit 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 section or part of the permit • 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 • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? The opportunity to raise issues and provide information on these general permits is during the public comment period ( *see* 40 CFR 124.13 for more information). You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. To ensure that EPA can read, understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or section in the fact sheet or permit to which each comment refers. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the two proposed general permits and the accompanying fact sheets. In particular, EPA is soliciting comments on the following specific aspects of the VGP (for more detail on each element see the Permit Fact Sheet): • Whether uses of Tetrachloroethylene

(TCE)other than dry cleaning should be explicitly included or excluded from permit coverage. EPA is also interested in comments on the frequency and nature of the use of TCE-containing products on vessels. (TCE discharges associated with dry-cleaning activities on vessels are not proposed to be eligible for coverage because they are not considered to be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.) • The approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels. • Whether the permit should establish numeric discharge limits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel for which the proposed permit would solely impose Best Management Practices (BMPs). (The proposed permit establishes numeric discharge limits for graywater from Cruise Ships, oily discharges, including oily mixtures, and residual biocide limits from vessels utilizing experimental ballast water treatment standards; for the remainder of the discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, the proposed permit imposes BMPs, based on EPA's conclusion that numeric effluent limitations are not feasible for vessel discharges in this permit iteration.) EPA requests that if commenters provide suggested numeric limits, that they should also provide any supporting data that identifies technologies or BMPs are available to meet these limits, and if these limits are more stringent than requirements of this permit, provide the costs and non-water quality impacts of setting those limits, and any other relevant information that would be helpful in setting these limits. • Whether EPA should limit discharges of bilgewater in embayments such as the Chesapeake Bay for large vessels that regularly leave waters subject to this permit. • Whether the requirement of mandatory saltwater flushing for all vessels with unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment which sail more than 200 nm (nautical mile) from any shore is appropriate. • Whether Ballast Water Exchange requirements similar to those proposed for Pacific near shore voyages should be applicable for vessels engaged in coastwise trade on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts that will discharge to waters subject to this permit. There are several fundamental differences between the Pacific Coasts and the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. EPA does not have credible data or analyses as to whether the practice for vessels engaged in Pacific coastwise trade would mitigate or increase the risk for the spread of aquatic nuisance species

(ANS)on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. Note that the proposed permit would require that all vessels that leave the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), travel more than 200 nm from any shore, and will discharge to waters subject to this permit must complete a Ballast Water Exchange and all such vessels with unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment must conduct Mandatory Saltwater Flushing. • Whether the questions developed for a one-time report are appropriate and whether alternative or supplemental questions should be considered. (The proposed permit requires owner/operators to submit a one-time report that contains basic information about the vessel after the 30th month of permit coverage). • Whether the proposed operational limits for large cruise ships are appropriate and whether the discharge standards proposed for within 1 nm of any shore should be extended to 3 nm from any shore, regardless of the speed of the vessel. (For large cruise ships, the proposed permit would prohibit the discharge of graywater within 1 nautical mile of shore unless the graywater has been treated to treatment standards in part 5.2.1.1.2 of the proposed permit. The proposed permit would also require the discharge to either meet the effluent limits outlined in this proposed permit under Part 5.2.1.1.2 or be discharged while the vessel is moving at least 6 knots for discharges between 1 nm and 3 nm of shore). • Whether the proposed prohibition on discharges of untreated graywater within 1 nm of shore for large and medium cruise ships, and into nutrient-impaired waters such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound for large cruise ships, is appropriate and whether EPA's economic analyses are accurate. EPA estimates that most to all large and medium cruise ships have sufficient graywater holding capacity to avoid discharging graywater within 1 nm of shore and so estimates no incremental costs for complying with this requirement. EPA further estimates that some vessels will be able to hold graywater so that they do not have to discharge that graywater into nutrient impaired waters. Those large cruise ships that do not have sufficient holding capacity and do not have the ability to treat graywater to secondary standards may have to install advanced wastewater treatment systems. EPA further estimates that of the total large cruise ship population of 143 vessels, 30 vessels are certified to operate in Alaskan waters and thus are already equipped to treat graywater or hold sufficient quantities that they would be able to avoid discharging in nutrient impaired waters. EPA separately estimates that approximately 57 vessels have advanced wastewater treatment systems (which likely includes most or all of the vessels certified to operate in Alaskan waters), some to many of which are already equipped to treat graywater (or hold sufficient quantities that they would be able to avoid discharging in nutrient impaired waters or within 1 nm of shore). This leaves a range of 86 to 113 large cruise ships that do not currently treat graywater and might have to install treatment to avoid discharging untreated greywater in nutrient impaired waters, EPA estimates that 30 of these vessels would actually need to install graywater treatment systems to allow discharge of graywater in nutrient-impaired waters. EPA believes that cruise ship operators could arrange their schedules and itineraries such that the remaining 56 to 83 vessels could avoid operating in nutrient impaired waters for prolonged periods or avoid itineraries that would require them to stay within 1 nm of shore for prolonged periods. Based on information previously gathered for Alaskan cruise ships, EPA estimates that the annualized cost for installing and operating such treatment is $7.09 per passenger/crew berth per season. EPA further estimates that the average capacity of large cruise ships is 3,211 passengers and crew members. EPA thus estimates an average annualized cost of installing graywater treatment of $22,766 per vessel, or about $683,000 per year for 30 vessels. (See Section 3.6.1 on p 70 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis for further details.) EPA requests comment on all of these estimates. If commenters disagree with any of these estimates, EPA requests any available data that could form the basis of revised estimates. • Whether large ferries should be subject to additional graywater treatment standards similar to those proposed for medium and large cruise ships. EPA is also particularly interested in comments on the following aspects of the RGP (for more detail on each element see the Permit Fact Sheet): • The approach to not require NOIs for recreational boats and recommendations (and rationale supporting them) where commenters favor NOI submittal for recreational boaters. • Whether the permit should establish numeric discharge limits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel for which the proposed permit would solely require BMPs. (The proposed permit establishes one numeric effluent limit in the form of a zero discharge standard for leaching of tribulyl tin from vessel hulls, a second numeric effluent limit for graywater discharges from Cruise ships when they discharge in certain waters, and a third for residual biocides from experimental ballast water treatment systems. EPA requests that if commenters provide suggested numeric limits, that they should also provide any supporting data that identifies technologies or BMPs available to meet these limits, and if these limits are more stringent than requirements of this permit, provide the costs and non-water quality impacts of setting those limits, and any other relevant information that would be helpful in setting these limits. • Whether any of the BMPs listed under the ‘Encouraged Best Management Practices’ Section should be made mandatory under this permit or completely removed as an encouraged practice. D. Public Hearing Because EPA anticipates a significant degree of public interest in these draft permits, EPA will hold a public hearing Monday, July 21, 2008, to receive public comment and answer questions concerning the proposed permits. The hearing will be held at EPA East Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. Any person may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the proposed permits at the public hearing. Depending on the number of persons who desire to make an oral statement, EPA may impose limits on the time allowed for oral statements, which may result in the full statement not being heard. Therefore, EPA recommends that all those planning to present an oral statement also submit a written statement. Any person not making an oral statement may also submit a written statement. E. Public Meetings EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard are co-hosting three

(3)public meetings. The U.S. Coast Guard has vast experience in researching, evaluating and regulating ballast water discharges, as well as expert knowledge of other discharges related to the normal operation of a vessel directly relevant to EPA's proposed vessel permits. The focus of each meeting is to present the proposed requirements of the VGP and RGP and the basis for those requirements, as well as to answer questions concerning the proposed permits. At these meetings, any person may provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the proposed permits. The date, time and location of the public meetings are as follows: • *Washington, DC:* Thursday, June 19, 2008, at the EPA East Building, Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • *Portland, Oregon:* Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at the Red Lion Hotel-Portland Convention Center, 1021 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you require overnight accommodations, contact the hotel directly to make reservations at Tel: 503-235-2100. • *Chicago, Illinois:* Thursday, June 26, 2008, at the Avenue Hotel, 160 E. Huron Street, Chicago, IL, 60611, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you require overnight accommodations, contact the hotel directly at Tel: 877-AVE-5110. EPA encourages interested and potentially affected stakeholders to attend one of the scheduled public meetings and provide oral or written comments. These meetings are open to the public. Please note that the public meeting may close early if all business is finished. Oral or written comments received at the public meeting will be entered into the Docket. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments to the EPA Water Docket at the address listed under ADDRESSES . F. Web Casts EPA has scheduled a Web cast to provide information on the proposed permits and to answer questions for interested parties that are unable to attend the public meetings or hearing. The Web cast will be broadcast on July 2, 2008, from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. For information on how to register and attend the Web cast, see EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/npdes/training* approximately 2 weeks prior to the date of the scheduled Web cast. G. Finalizing the Permits After the close of the public comment period, EPA will issue final permit decisions. These decisions will not be made until after all public comments have been considered and appropriate changes made to the permits. EPA's response to comments received will be included in the docket as part of the final permit decisions. For a discussion of the timing of permit finalization, see section III.E of this notice below. H. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts for This Proposed Permit? For EPA Region 1, contact Sara Green at USEPA REGION 1, 1 Congress Street Suite 1100, Mail Code: CIP, Boston, MA 02114-2023; or at tel.:

(617)918-1574; or e-mail at *greene.sara@epa.gov.* For EPA Region 2, contact James Olander at USEPA REGION 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; or at tel.:

(212)637-3833; or e-mail at *olander.james@epa.gov* . For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at USEPA REGION 3, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; or at tel.:

(215)814-3105; or e-mail at *smith.mark@epa.gov.* For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall Hyatt at USEPA REGION 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; or at tel.:

(404)562-9304; or e-mail at *hyatt.marshall@epa.gov* . For EPA Region 5, contact Sean Ramach at USEPA REGION 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN-16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at tel.:

(312)886-5284; or e-mail at *ramach.sean@epa.gov* . For EPA Region 6, contact J. Scott Wilson at USEPA REGION 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WQPP, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at tel.:

(214)665-7511; or e-mail at *wilson.scott@epa.gov.* For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at USEPA REGION 7, 901 North Fifth Street, Mail Code: WWPDWIMB, Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel:

(913)551-7584; or e-mail at *owutaka.alex@epa.gov.* For EPA Region 8, contact Sandy Stavnes, at USEPA REGION 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P-W-WW, Denver, CO 80202-1129; or at tel:

(303)312-6117; or e-mail at *stavnes.sandra@epa.gov.* For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at USEPA REGION 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Code: WTR-5, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at tel.:

(415)972-3510; or e-mail at *bromley.eugene@epa.gov* . For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi Godsey at USEPA Region 10—Alaska Operations Office, Federal Building Room 537, 222 West 7th Avenue #19 Mail Code: AOO/A, Anchorage, AK 99513-7588; or at tel.:

(907)271-6561; or e-mail at *godsey.cindi@epa.gov* . II. Statutory and Regulatory History A. The Clean Water Act Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA)provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,

(B)any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “point source” is a “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” and includes a “vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). The term “pollutant” includes, among other things, “garbage * * * chemical wastes * * * and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” The Act's definition of “pollutant” specifically excludes “sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces” as defined in Clean Water Act section 312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition is by obtaining a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the Act. B. The History of the Exclusion of Vessels From the NPDES Program Less than one year after the CWA was enacted, EPA promulgated a regulation that excluded discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from NPDES permitting. 38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. After Congress re-authorized and amended the CWA in 1977, EPA invited another round of public comment on the regulation. 43 FR 37078, August 21, 1978. In 1979, EPA promulgated the final revision that established the regulation largely in its current form. 44 FR 32854, June 7, 1979. The current regulation identifies several types of vessel discharges as being subject to NPDES permitting, but specifically excludes discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:

(a)Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This exclusion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development. 40 CFR 122.3(a). Although other subsections of 40 CFR 122.3 and its predecessor were the subject of legal challenges ( *See NRDC* v. *Costle* , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)), following its promulgation, the regulatory text relevant to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels went unchallenged, and has been in effect ever since. C. The Legal Challenge In December 2003, the long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES program became the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit arose from a January 13, 1999, rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by a number of parties concerned about the effects of ballast water discharges. The petition asked the Agency to repeal its regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. The petition asserted that vessels are “point sources” requiring NPDES permits for discharges to U.S. waters; that EPA lacks authority to exclude point source discharges from vessels from the NPDES program; that ballast water must be regulated under the NPDES program because it contains invasive plant and animal species as well as other materials of concern ( *e.g.* , oil, chipped paint, sediment and toxins in ballast water sediment); and that enactment of CWA section 312(n) (Uniform National Discharge Standards, also known as the UNDS program) demonstrated Congress' rejection of the exclusion. In response to the 1999 petition, EPA first prepared a detailed report for public comment, *Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options* (September 10, 2001). *See* , 66 FR 49381, September 27, 2001. After considering the comments received, EPA declined to reopen the exclusion for additional rulemaking, and denied the petition on September 2, 2003. EPA explained that since enactment of the CWA, EPA has consistently interpreted the Act to provide for NPDES regulation of discharges from industrial operations that incidentally occur onboard vessels ( *e.g.* , seafood processing facilities or oil exploration operations at sea) and of discharges overboard of materials such as trash, but not of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel ( *e.g.* , ballast water) subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion. EPA further explained that Congress had expressly considered and accepted the Agency's regulation in the years since its promulgation, and that Congress chose to regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels through programs other than CWA section 402 permitting. Thus, it was EPA's understanding that Congress had acquiesced to EPA's long-standing interpretation of how the CWA applied to vessels. Denial of the petition did not reflect EPA's dismissal of the significant impacts of aquatic invasive species, but rather the understanding that other programs had been enacted to specifically address the issue and that the CWA does not currently provide an appropriate framework for addressing ballast water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military vessels. In the denial of the petition, EPA noted that when Congress specifically focused on the problem of aquatic nuisance species in ballast water, it did not look to or endorse the NPDES program as the means to address the problem. Instead, Congress enacted new statutes which directed and authorized the Coast Guard, rather than EPA, to establish a regulatory program for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, including ballast water ( *i.e.* , Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4701 *et seq.;* Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq.* ). Furthermore, Congress made no effort to legislatively repeal EPA's interpretation of the NPDES program or to expressly mandate that discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels be addressed through the NPDES permitting program. EPA reasoned that this Congressional action and inaction in light of Congress' awareness of the regulatory exclusion confirmed that Congress accepted EPA's interpretation and chose the Coast Guard as the lead agency under other statutes. In addition, EPA found significant practical and policy reasons not to re-open the longstanding CWA regulatory exclusion, reasoning that there are a number of ongoing activities within the Federal government related to control of invasive species in ballast water, many of which are likely to be more effective and efficient than use of NPDES permits under the CWA. EPA also noted that nothing in the CWA prevents states from independently regulating ballast water discharges under State law, should they choose to do so, pursuant to CWA section 510. After EPA's September 2003 denial of the petition, a number of groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. *Nw. Envt'l Advocates et al.* v. *EPA* , 2005 WL 756614 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint was brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* and set out two causes of action. First, the complaint challenged EPA's promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a), an action the Agency took in 1973. The second cause of action challenged EPA's September 2003 denial of their petition to repeal the Sec. 122.3(a) exclusion. D. District Court Decision In March 2005, the Court determined that the exclusion exceeded the Agency's authority under the CWA. Specifically, in March 2005 the Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs: “The Court DECLARES that EPA's exclusion from NPDES permit requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel at 40 CFR 122.3(a) is in excess of the Agency's authority under the Clean Water Act * * * ”. After this ruling, the Court granted motions to intervene on behalf of the Plaintiffs by the States of Illinois, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and on behalf of the Government-Defendant by the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition. Following submission of briefs and oral argument by the parties and interveners on the issue of a proper remedy, the Court issued a final order in September 2006 providing that: “The blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated as of September 30, 2008.” This means that, effective September 30, 2008 (and assuming the order is not overturned or altered on appeal), discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES permitting by that regulation, will become subject to CWA section 301's prohibition against discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. The CWA authorizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of that prohibition and also allows for citizen suits against violators. Because the Government respectfully disagrees with the District Court's decision, on November 16, 2006, EPA filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on August 14, 2007, and a decision is pending. Additional material related to the lawsuit is contained in the docket accompanying these proposed permits and fact sheets. If the 9th Circuit reverses or otherwise modifies the District Court's decision on appeal, this proposed permit or any final permit may be terminated, reopened, or modified, as appropriate. III. Scope and Applicability of the 2008 VGP and RGP A. Geographic Coverage of VGP and RGP The proposed VGP and RGP apply to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel identified as being eligible for coverage in the proposed permits, into waters subject to the permits. These waters are “waters of the United States” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 (extending to the reach of the 3-mile territorial seas as defined in section 502(8) of the CWA). The draft general permits would cover vessel discharges in the waters of the U.S. in all states and territories, regardless of whether a state is otherwise authorized to implement the NPDES permit program within its jurisdiction. For more information on this approach, see the fact sheets accompanying the draft permits. B. Categories of Vessels Covered Under VGP and RGP The draft vessel general permit

(VGP)applies to owners and operators of commercial vessels and recreational vessels that are greater than 79 feet (24.08 meters) in length. The recreational vessel permit

(RGP)applies to all recreational vessels and un-inspected passenger vessels that are less than 79 feet in length, measured from bow to stern, excluding any attachments or extensions. Recreational vessels are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure (46 United State Code (U.S.C.) 2101(25)). Recreational vessels include, but are not limited to, motorboats, sailboats, recreational fishing boats, personal watercraft, rowboats, canoes, and kayaks. Vessel owner/operators must only comply with the provisions of the permit that are applicable to them. For instance, non-motorized vessels do not need to do any BMPs for fuel control, or the discharge of oil, including oily mixtures. This permit

(RGP)also applies to un-inspected passenger vessels that are less than 79 feet in length, measured from bow to stern, excluding any attachments or extensions, whose operation is substantially similar to that of a recreational vessel of less than 79 feet in length. For purposes of this permit, these vessels include sailboats for-hire, charter-fishing vessels engaging in hook-and-line fishing, and personal watercraft for hire. For purposes of the RGP, vessels that are not considered “un-inspected passenger vessels” and are not covered by this permit include, but are not limited to, commercial fishing vessels, commercial ferries, tug boats, freighters, water taxis, and small cruise ships. These vessels are covered by the VGP. C. Summary of VGP Terms and Requirements The proposed VGP addresses 28 potential vessel discharge streams by establishing effluent limits, including Best Management Practices

(BMPs)to control the discharge of the waste streams and constituents found in those waste streams. The discharge streams eligible for coverage under this proposed permit are: ballast water, deck washdown and runoff, bilge water, anti-fouling leachate from anti-fouling hull coatings, aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), boiler/economizer blowdown, cathodic protection, chain locker effluent, controllable pitch propeller hydraulic fluid, distillation and reverse osmosis brine, elevator pit effluent, firemain systems, freshwater layup, gas turbine water wash, graywater, motor gasoline and compensating discharge, non-oily machinery wastewater, refrigeration and air condensate discharge, rudder bearing lubrication discharge, seawater cooling overboard discharge, seawater piping biofouling prevention, small boat engine wet exhaust, stern tube oily discharge, sonar dome discharge, underwater ship husbandry, welldeck discharges, graywater mixed with sewage from vessels, and exhaust gas scrubber wash water discharge. For each discharge type, the permit establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent and BMPs designed to decrease the amount of constituents entering the waste stream. A vessel might not produce all of these discharges, but a vessel owner or operator is responsible for meeting the applicable effluent limits and complying with all the effluent limits for every listed discharge that the vessel produces. Discharge Authorization Timeframe To obtain authorization, the owner or operator of a vessel that is either 300 or more gross registered tons or has the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water is required to submit a Notice of Intent

(NOI)to receive permit coverage, beginning six months after the permit's issuance date, but no later than nine months after the permit's issuance date. For vessels that were delivered to the owner or operator no later than 9 months after the permit's issuance date, the vessel will receive permit coverage on the date that EPA receives the complete NOI. Vessels that are delivered after that date will receive permit coverage 30 days after EPA receives the complete NOI. Vessels that meet the applicable eligibility requirements for permit coverage but are not required to submit an NOI, including vessels less than 300 gross registered tons with no more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity and recreational vessels subject to the RGP, will be automatically authorized by the proposed permits to discharge according to the permit requirements. Monitoring and Reporting The VGP requires routine self-inspection and monitoring of all areas of the vessel that the permit addresses. The routine self-inspection must be documented in the ship's logbook. Analytical monitoring is required for certain types of vessels. The VGP also requires comprehensive annual vessel inspections, to ensure even the hard-to-reach areas of the vessel are inspected for permit compliance. If the vessel is placed in dry dock while covered under this permit, a dry dock inspection and report must be completed. Additional monitoring requirements are imposed on certain classes of vessels, based on unique characteristics not shared by other vessels covered under the VGP. Vessel Type-Specific Requirements The permit imposes additional requirements for 8 specific types of vessels which have unique characteristics resulting in discharges not shared by other types of vessels. These vessel types are medium cruise ships, large cruise ships, large ferries, barges, oil or petroleum tankers, research vessels, rescue boats, and vessels employing experimental ballast water treatment systems. The permit requirements are designed to address the discharges from features unique to those vessels, such as parking decks on ferries and overnight accommodations for passengers on cruise ships. D. Summary of RGP Permit Terms and Requirements The RGP addresses a smaller range of discharges than the VGP, because recreational vessels produce different types of discharges that are fewer in number and variety than the discharges from commercial and large recreational vessels covered under the VGP. Discharges most likely to occur from recreational vessels include anti-fouling hull leachate, deck washdown and runoff, graywater, engine cooling water, and bilge water. Constituents found in these discharge streams include aquatic nuisance species (ANS), oil and oily mixtures, nutrients, metals and toxins, and pathogens. The RGP is a much simpler permit than the VGP and primarily includes BMPs designed to minimize the amount of any discharge produced as well as reduce the likelihood the discharge will enter a waterbody. In addition to required BMPs, the permit includes a section of encouraged BMPs. These are recommended practices which can further reduce pollution from vessel discharges. The RGP does not require the vessel owner or operator to submit an NOI to receive permit coverage. As long as the vessel owner or operator has met the eligibility requirements found in the permit and discharges in accordance with the applicable terms of the permit, the eligible discharges are authorized. E. Timing of Permit Finalization As discussed above, if the Northern District of California's order remains unchanged, the exclusion from NPDES permitting for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel will be vacated as of September 30, 2008, which is approximately three and a half months from today's notice seeking public comment on the draft permits. Even for non-controversial and straightforward permits, it normally takes the Agency significantly more time than that to complete all of the tasks required to finalize a draft general permit, such as considering and responding to public comment, completing Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determinations, and completing the Clean Water Act section 401 certification process. Although EPA expects significant public interest and comment on today's proposed permits, EPA will make every effort to finalize today's permits by the date of vacatur. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The legal question of whether a general permit (as opposed to an individual permit) qualifies as a “rule” or as an “adjudication” under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)has been the subject of periodic litigation. In a recent case, the court held that the CWA Section 404 Nationwide general permit before the court did qualify as a “rule” and therefore that the issuance of the general permit needed to comply with the applicable legal requirements for the issuance of a “rule.” *National Ass'n of Home Builders* v. *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,* 417 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (DC Cir.2005) (Army Corps general permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act are rules under the APA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act; “Each NWP [nationwide permit] easily fits within the APA's definition `rule.'. . . As such, each NWP constitutes a rule . . .”). As EPA stated in 1998, “the Agency recognizes that the question of the applicability of the APA, and thus the RFA, to the issuance of a general permit is a difficult one, given the fact that a large number of dischargers may choose to use the general permit.” 63 FR 36489, 36497 (July 6, 1998). At that time, EPA “reviewed its previous NPDES general permitting actions and related statements in the **Federal Register** or elsewhere,” and stated that “[t]his review suggests that the Agency has generally treated NPDES general permits effectively as rules, though at times it has given contrary indications as to whether these actions are rules or permits.” *Id.* at 36496. Based on EPA's further legal analysis of the issue, the Agency “concluded, as set forth in the proposal, that NPDES general permits are permits [ *i.e.* , adjudications] under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the RFA.” *Id.* Accordingly, the Agency stated that “the APA's rulemaking requirements are inapplicable to issuance of such permits,” and thus “NPDES permitting is not subject to the requirement to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the APA or any other law * * * [and] it is not subject to the RFA.” *Id.* at 36497. However, the Agency went on to explain that, even though EPA had concluded that it was not legally required to do so, the Agency would voluntarily perform the RFA's small-entity impact analysis. *Id.* EPA explained the strong public interest in the Agency following the RFA's requirements on a voluntary basis: “[The notice and comment] process also provides an opportunity for EPA to consider the potential impact of general permit terms on small entities and how to craft the permit to avoid any undue burden on small entities.” *Id.* Accordingly, with respect to the NPDES permit that EPA was addressing in that **Federal Register** notice, EPA stated that “the Agency has considered and addressed the potential impact of the general permit on small entities in a manner that would meet the requirements of the RFA if it applied.” *Id.* Subsequent to EPA's conclusion in 1998 that general permits are adjudications, rather than rules, as noted above, the DC Circuit recently held that nationwide general permits under section 404 are “rules” rather than “adjudications.” Thus, this legal question remains “a difficult one” *(supra).* However, EPA continues to believe that there is a strong public policy interest in EPA applying the RFA's framework and requirements to the Agency's evaluation and consideration of the nature and extent of any economic impacts that a CWA general permit could have on small entities (e.g., small businesses). In this regard, EPA believes that the Agency's evaluation of the potential economic impact that a general permit would have on small entities, consistent with the RFA framework discussed below, is relevant to, and an essential component of, the Agency's assessment of whether a CWA general permit would place requirements on dischargers that are appropriate and reasonable. Furthermore, EPA believes that the RFA's framework and requirements provide the Agency with the best approach for the Agency's evaluation of the economic impact of general permits on small entities. While using the RFA framework to inform its assessment of whether permit requirements are appropriate and reasonable, EPA will also continue to ensure that all permits satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, EPA has committed that the Agency will operate in accordance with the RFA's framework and requirements during the Agency's issuance of CWA general permits (in other words, the Agency commits that it will apply the RFA in its issuance of general permits as if those permits do qualify as “rules” that are subject to the RFA). In satisfaction of this commitment, during the course of this VGP and RGP proceeding, the Agency conducted the analysis and made the appropriate determinations that are called for by the RFA. In addition, and in satisfaction of the Agency's commitment, EPA will apply the RFA's framework and requirements in any future issuance of other NPDES general permits. EPA anticipates that for most general permits the Agency will be able to conclude that there is not a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In such cases, the requirements of the RFA framework are fulfilled by including a statement to this effect in the permit fact sheet, along with a statement providing the factual basis for the conclusion. A quantitative analysis of impacts would only be required for permits that may affect a substantial number of small entities, consistent with EPA guidance regarding RFA certification 1 . 1 EPA's current guidance, entitled Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, was issued in November 2006 and is available on EPA's Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf.* After considering the Guidance and the purpose of CWA general permits, EPA concludes that general permits affecting less than 100 small entities do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. V. Analysis of Economic Impacts of VGP and RGP EPA determined that, in consideration of the discussion in Section IV above, the issuance of the VGP and RGP may have the potential to affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in order to determine what, if any, economic impact these permits may have on small businesses, EPA conducted an economic assessment of these general permits. This economic analysis is included in the records for these permits. Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal economic impact on all entities, including small businesses, these permits are not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the RGP, the total annual estimated compliance cost per permittee ranges from $8.79 to $25.99 per year for motorboats, $5.39 to $22.59 for sailboats, and $0.29 to $2.39 per year for non-motorized small craft. Nationally, the draft economic impact analysis indicates that the RGP has an expected cost of $88.2 million annually. Including the ballast water and other discharge requirements, the draft economic impact analysis indicates that the best management practices in the VGP would cost between $5.6 million and $19.1 million annually. Including paperwork requirements, the permit is estimated to cost between $7.1 and $25.0 million annually. Dependent upon sector, median costs per firm range from $4 to $795 in the low end assumptions and from $53 to $1,598 in the high end assumptions. EPA applied a cost-to-revenue test which calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of total revenues and used a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify entities that would be significantly impacted as a result of this Permit. The total number of entities expected to exceed a 1% cost ratio ranges from 285 under low cost assumptions to 389 under high cost assumptions. Of this universe, the total number of entities expected to exceed a 3% cost ratio ranges from 71 under low cost assumptions to 76 under high cost assumptions. The total domestic flagged vessel universe that would be affected by this permit includes approximately 91,000 vessels. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this permit is unlikely to result in a significant economic impact on any businesses and in particular, small businesses. The economic analyses are available in the record for these permits. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 9, 2008. Ira Leighton, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 1. Dated: June 10, 2008. Kevin Bricke, Acting Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, EPA, Region 2. Dated: June 10, 2008. Carl-Axel P. Soderberg, Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA, Region 2. Dated: June 9, 2008. Jon M. Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3. Dated: June 9, 2008. Jim Giattina, Director, Water Management Division, EPA, Region 4. Dated: June 10, 2008. Tinka G. Hyde, Acting Director, Water Division, EPA, Region 5. Dated: June 10, 2008. William Honker, Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA, Region 6. Dated: June 9, 2008. William A. Spratlin, Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA, Region 7. Dated: June 10, 2008. Stephen S. Tuber, Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, EPA, Region 8. Dated: June 10, 2008. Alexis Strauss, Director, Water Divsion, EPA, Region 9. Dated: June 11, 2008. Michael Lidgard, Acting Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA, Region 10. [FR Doc. E8-13615 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8580-7] Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Request for a Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions for the State of West Virginia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Requests for a Public Hearing. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of West Virginia is revising their Public Water Supply Supervision

(PWSS)program to meet the requirements of Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. West Virginia has adopted regulations for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT2)to improve public health protection through the control of microbiological contaminants by targeting additional *Cryptosporidium* treatment requirements to higher risk systems, and for the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2) to reduce exposure to Disinfection By-Products

(DBP)by requiring systems to meet maximum contaminant levels as an average at each compliance monitoring location, rather than as a system-wide average, for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes

(TTHM)and five haloacetic acids (HAA5). EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has decided to tentatively approve these program revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing. DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 17, 2008. This determination shall become effective on July 17, 2008 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval. ADDRESSES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: • Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. • West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Environmental Engineering Division, Capitol and Washington Streets, 1 Davis Square, Suite 200, Charleston, WV 25301-1798. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Moustakas, Drinking Water Branch (3WP21) at the Philadelphia address given above; telephone

(215)814-5741 or fax

(215)814-2318. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing. All comments will be considered, and, if necessary, EPA will issue a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by July 17, 2008, a public hearing will be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing;

(2)a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such a hearing; and

(3)the signature of the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. Dated: June 5, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8-13614 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 08-03] Maher Terminal, LLC, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) by Maher Terminal, LLC. Complainant asserts that it is a limited liability company registered in the State of Delaware with corporate offices and facilities located in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Complainant asserts that Respondent, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“PANYNJ”), is a body corporate and politic created by Compact between the States of New York and New Jersey and with the consent of the Congress; has offices located in New York, New York; owns marine terminal facilities in the New York-New Jersey area, including in Elizabeth, New Jersey; and is a marine terminal operator within the meaning of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended (“The Shipping Act”). *See* 46 U.S.C. 40102(14). Complainant contends that Respondent violated sections 41102(c) and 41106(2) and

(3)of The Shipping Act, respectively, by:

(1)Failing to establish, observe and enforce just and reasonable practices with respect to Complainant;

(2)giving undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to APMT and imposing undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with respect to Complainant; and

(3)unreasonably refusing to deal or negotiate with Complainant. 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 41106(2)-(3). Specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondent's lease agreement EP-248 with APM Terminals North America, Inc., formerly known as Maersk Container Service Company, Inc. (“APMT”), grants to APMT unduly and unreasonably more favorable lease terms than Respondent provides to Complainant in lease agreement EP-249. These agreements, Complainant avers, are filed with the Commission as FMC Agreement Nos. 201106 and 201131, respectively. Complainant contends that the lease terms which disadvantage Complainant include, but are not limited to, the annual rental rate per acre, investment requirements, throughput requirements, a first point of rest requirement for automobiles, and the security deposit requirement. Complainant asserts that it has sustained injuries and damages, as a result of Respondent's actions, including but not limited to higher rents, costs, and other undue and unreasonable payments and obligations amounting to a sum of millions of dollars. Complainant requests that the Commission require Respondent to:

(1)Answer the charges in the subject complaint;

(2)cease and desist from the aforementioned violations of the Shipping Act;

(3)provide to Complainant the preferences provided to APMT;

(4)put in force such practices and as the Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; and

(5)pay to Complainant by way of reparations the amount of the actual injury, plus interest, cost and attorneys fees, and any other damages to be determined. Additionally, Complainant requests that the Commission order any such other relief as it determines appropriate. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 11, 2009, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by October 9, 2009. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-13547 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees for Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees for Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: *Facility:* Los Alamos National Laboratory. *Location:* Los Alamos, New Mexico. *Job Titles and/or Job Duties:* All service support workers (which includes, but is not limited to, security guards, firefighters, laborers, custodians, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, ironworkers, welders, maintenance workers, truck drivers, delivery persons, radiation technicians, and area work coordinators) who worked in any operational Technical Areas with a history of radioactive material use. *Period of Employment:* January 1, 1976 through December 31, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV.* Dated: June 5, 2008. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-13626 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees for General Steel Industries, Granite City, IL, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees for General Steel Industries, Granite City, Illinois, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: *Facility:* General Steel Industries. *Location:* Granite City, Illinois. *Job Titles and/or Job Duties:* All individuals who worked in any location. *Period of Employment:* January 1, 1953 through December 31, 1966, and/or during the residual contamination period from January 1, 1967 through December 31, 1992. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV* . Dated: June 5, 2008. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-13629 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-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, Molecular Aspects of Neuronal Development, Function and Pathology. *Date:* June 25, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 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:* Lawrence Baizer, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1257, *baizerl@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:* AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS Clinical Studies and Epidemiology Study Section. *Date:* July 17, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Sofitel Lafayette Square, 806 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. *Contact Person:* Hilary D. Sigmon, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)594-6377, *sigmon@hcsr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Chemistry Small Business Review. *Date:* July 22, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* John L. Bowers, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4170, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892,

(301)435-1725, *bowersj@csr.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Cellular Probes. *Date:* July 29, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* George W. Chacko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5170, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1245, *chackoge@csr.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: June 6, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13239 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings. The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, Aging Disease. *Date:* July 17, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* Bita Nakhai, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7701, *nakhaib@nia.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, Varicella Zoster Virus Infection. *Date:* July 22, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call) *Contact Person:* William Cruce, PhD, Health Scientist Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704, *crucew@nia.nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 6, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13238 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, July 10, 2008, 12 p.m. to July 10, 2008, 4 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the **Federal Register** on May 29, 2008, 73 FR 30957-30958. Meeting will begin at 10 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public. Dated: June 6, 2008. Anna Snouffer, Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13240 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Workgroup Meeting Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Strategic Planning Workgroup

(SPWG)organized by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). Audio of this workgroup meeting will be accessible to the public via a teleconference phone link, and there will be Web-based access to information displayed at the meeting via computer/projector. Access information will be posted on the IACC Web site: ( *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/scientific-meetings/recurring-meetings/iacc/events/index.shtml* ). Attendance at the meeting itself will be limited to workgroup members. The purpose of the workgroup meeting is to review an early draft of the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder

(ASD)Research. The SPWG comments on the draft plan will be forwarded to the IACC for consideration and discussion at its next meeting on July 15, 2008. *Name of Committee:* Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). *Type of meeting:* Strategic Planning Workgroup. *Date:* July 8, 2008. *Time:* 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. EST. *Agenda:* Review of draft IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 2172, Bethesda, MD. *Contact Person:* Tanya Pryor, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, 301-443-7153. Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/scientific-meetings/recurring-meetings/iacc/index.shtml.* Dated: June 10, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-13508 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration [Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191; Coast Guard-2006-24196] Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Enrollment Dates for the Ports of Little Rock, AR and Camden, NJ AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration; United States Coast Guard; DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)through the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA)issues this notice of the dates for the beginning of the initial enrollment for the Transportation Worker Identification Credential

(TWIC)for the Ports of Little Rock, AR and Camden, NJ. DATES: TWIC enrollment begins in Little Rock on June 11, 2008 and Camden on June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may view published documents and comments concerning the TWIC Final Rule, identified by the docket numbers of this notice, using any one of the following methods.

(1)Searching the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Web page at *http://www.regulations.gov* ;

(2)Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* ; or

(3)Visiting TSA's Security Regulations Web page at *http://www.tsa.gov* and accessing the link for “Research Center” at the top of the page. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Orgill, TSA-19, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220. Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC), TWIC Program,

(571)227-4545; e-mail: *credentialing@dhs.gov* . Background The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the United States Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), issued a joint final rule (72 FR 3492; January 25, 2007) pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (November 25, 2002), and the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347 (October 13, 2006). This rule requires all credentialed merchant mariners and individuals with unescorted access to secure areas of a regulated facility or vessel to obtain a TWIC. In this final rule, on page 3510, TSA and Coast Guard stated that a phased enrollment approach based upon risk assessment and cost/benefit would be used to implement the program nationwide, and that TSA would publish a notice in the **Federal Register** indicating when enrollment at a specific location will begin and when it is expected to terminate. This notice provides the start date for TWIC initial enrollment at the Ports of Little Rock, AR, on June 11, 2008; and Camden, NJ, on June 12, 2008. The Coast Guard will publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** indicating when facilities within the Captain of the Port Zone Lower Miss. River, including those in the Port of Little Rock; and Captain of the Port Zone Delaware Bay, including those in the Port of Camden must comply with the portions of the final rule requiring TWIC to be used as an access control measure. That notice will be published at least 90 days before compliance is required. To obtain information on the pre-enrollment and enrollment process, and enrollment locations, visit TSA's TWIC Web site at *http://www.tsa.gov/twic* . Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on June 11, 2008. Rex Lovelady, Program Manager, TWIC, Office of Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing, Transportation Security Administration. [FR Doc. E8-13497 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities *Agency Information Collection Activities:* Form I-134, Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request. ACTION: *30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review:* Form I-134, Affidavit of Support; OMB Control No. 1615-0014. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on April 9, 2008, at 73 FR 19235 allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 17, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 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* , and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0014. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Revision of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Affidavit of Support.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-134. 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 and households. This information collection is necessary to determine if at the time of application into the United States, the applicant is likely to become a public charge.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 44,000 responses at 90 minutes (1.5 hours) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 66,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(202)272-8377. Dated: June 11, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-13543 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-765, Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-756, Application for Employment Authorization; OMB Control No. 1615-0040. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008, at 73 FR 19861 allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 17, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 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,* and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *kastrich@omb.eop.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0040. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved information collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Application for Employment Authorization.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-765. 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 and households. The information collected on this form is used by the USCIS to determine eligibility for the issuance of the employment document.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 1,885,296 responses at 3 hours and 25 minutes (3.42 hours) per response.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 6,447,712 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,

(202)272-8377. Dated: June 11, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-13549 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Photocopying Machines AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of final determination. SUMMARY: This document provides notice that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain photocopying machines which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. Based on the facts presented, CBP has concluded that certain goods imported into Japan are substantially transformed in Japan such that Japan is the country of origin of the finished photocopying machines for government procurement purposes. DATES: The final determination was issued on June 11, 2008. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within July 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yuliya A. Gulis, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade (202-572-8783). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on June 11, 2008, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain photocopying machines which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, in HQ H025106, was issued at the request of Ricoh Company, Ltd. under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). The final determination concluded that, based upon the facts presented, certain goods imported into Japan are substantially transformed in Japan such that Japan is the country of origin of the finished photocopying machines for government procurement purposes. Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the **Federal Register** within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), states that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the **Federal Register** . Dated: June 11, 2008. Sandra L. Bell, Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade. Attachment: HQ H025106. HQ H025106 June 11, 2008 OT:RR:CTF:VS H025106 YAG Category: Marking. Mr. Yoshihiro Saito, Manelli Denison & Selter, PLLC, 2000 M Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036-3307 RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Photocopying Machines; Substantial Transformation; 19 CFR Part 177 Dear Mr. Saito: This is in response to your letter, dated March 20, 2008, requesting a final determination on behalf of Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“Ricoh”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 *et seq.* ). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 *et seq.* ), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purpose of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. This final determination concerns the country of origin of certain photocopying machines that Ricoh may sell to the U.S. Government. We note that Ricoh is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination. Facts The products subject to this ruling are certain photocopying machines manufactured by Ricoh, referred to as the “AC1 Series”, and to be imported from Japan for the purpose of sales to U.S. government agencies. The AC1 Series have photocopying, printing, faxing, and scanning functions. The AC1 Series is capable of producing 40 or 50 black-and-white copies of documents per minute, depending on the model. However, some copiers in this series are capable of scanning color images in documents. Ricoh has developed the AC1 Series in Japan and performed the entire engineering, development, design, and art work in Japan. An AC1 copier is stated to be a complex machine comprising a total of 2,534 pieces of individual parts. You state that at the initial stage of the copier production process, individual parts are assembled into various assemblages of parts called “sections,” “systems,” “subassemblies,” or “units.” These part assemblages represent 53 basic building blocks for each AC1 copier. These blocks are in turn incorporated into modularized units or subassemblies with distinct functions. You claim that the primary functional modules of the AC1 copier are: the Scanning Unit, Laser Scanning Unit, Controller Unit (“Controller”), Photoconductor Unit, Developer Unit, Transfer Unit, and Fusing Unit. Additionally, the Main Frame, automatic document feeder (ADF), duplexer, and paper trays perform support functions by supplying power through the electrical systems, driving the engine and feeding/guiding and flipping the paper. You state that Ricoh will conduct the fabrication and/or the final assembly of the Scanning Unit, Laser Scanning Unit, Controller, Photoconductor Unit, and Main Frame in Japan, using blocks and individual parts of Japanese, Chinese, and third-country origins. On the other hand, the Developer Unit, Transfer Unit, Fusing Unit, and Base Engine and Image Control Unit (“BICU”) as well as the ADF, paper trays, etc. will be assembled in China by Ricoh Asia Industry, Ltd. (“RAI”) or its contractors, using Chinese and Japanese parts. The final assembly of AC1 photocopying machines will take place in Japan. Ricoh will also conduct testing on the subassemblies and finished copiers in Japan. The final assembly process will comprise at least 30 significant steps, not including pre-assembly work, tests or adjustments performed on individual subassemblies. Finally, the finished AC1 Series copiers will undergo final inspection and packing for shipment to the United States. Scanning Unit The Scanning Unit performs the initial task of converting the original images into digital signals. An original document is scanned when the xenon lamp irradiates the original document through the exposure glass. The light that reads the document is reflected by three separate mirrors and arrives at a Charge Coupled Device (“CCD”) after passing through an assemblage of small lens pieces. CCD incorporates photo diodes, which convert the light (i.e. photons) on the pixels into analog electronic signals. The analog signals are then converted into digital form through the printed wiring board called sensor board unit (“SBU”) and from there transmitted to the DRAM and flash memory boards located in the Controller Unit for storage. The DRAM stores the image memory, while the flash memory stores the program. The xenon lamp is a Japanese part. The reflection mirrors and the lens block are produced in China to Ricoh's specifications and Ricoh designs these optical parts. The CCD is manufactured in Japan by an unaffiliated producer. The first and second carriage sections of the Scanning Unit are pre-assembled by RAI in China by inserting a xenon lamp, a reflector, and mirrors into designated spots. However, after this pre-assembly is complete, the carriage sections are shipped to Ricoh in Japan, where the subsequent assembly is performed by combining the first and second carriages together, installing a set of six lenses into a lens block, and CCD in perfect alignment with each other and with the rest of the components in the Scanning Unit. The exposure and sheet-through glasses are also attached at that stage. The complete Scanning Unit is then tested and a Scanner Validation Tool (“SVT”), which is a software package developed by Ricoh engineers, evaluates the test results against parameters. Controller Unit Subassembly The Controller contains a central processing unit (“CPU”), a hard disk drive, a flash memory (ROM), two dual in-line memory modules (“DIMM”), a random access memory (DRAM or SDRAM), a non-volatile random access memory (“NVRAM”) and interface cards. The Controller controls all applications of AC1 as a photocopier, as well as its additional/optional functions as a printer, a scanner, or a fax machine. Once the information is stored in the DRAM and flash memory of the Controller, it is transmitted to the three application-specific-integrated circuits (“ASICs”), located on the BICU board in the Main Frame section of the copier. All three ASICs will be manufactured in Japan. The CPU on the Controller Unit will be purchased from a Canadian producer. The DRAM and flash memory will be purchased from multiple countries. However, the Controller Unit itself will be assembled and tested in Japan. Laser Scanning Unit The electronic signals processed by the ASICs are transmitted to the Laser Scanning Unit. In the Laser Scanning Unit, two laser diodes convert the electronic signals into pulsed laser beams, which are then sent to the photoconductor drum. On the way to the drum, the laser beams pass through a collimator lens, a cylindrical lens, and barrel troidal lens (“BTL”) and are reflected by polygonal and f-theta mirrors. The laser diodes, the f-theta mirror, BTL and the collimator lens will be produced in Japan. The cylindrical lens will be supplied from China. Nonetheless, the assembly of the Laser Scanning Unit will take place in Japan. Photoconductor Unit The Photoconductor Unit contains a photoconductive drum and an electron-charging roller. The drum, coated with an Organic Photo Conductor (“OPC”) is the main component of the Photoconductor Unit. This unit is charged with electricity and the laser beam sweeps across it to make the electrostatic latent image. The drum is a Japanese product, and the time-consuming and capital intensive assembly of the photoconductor unit will take place in Japan. Developer Unit The Developer Unit supplies the toner to the drum. The developer roller and developer doctor are the key components of this Unit and are manufactured in Japan. All other parts will be produced or purchased in China. The Developer Unit will be assembled and tested in China before being shipped to Japan for the final assembly of the copier. Transfer Unit The Transfer Unit transfers the visible image from the drum to paper. The Transfer Unit will be assembled in China. The assembly of the Transfer Unit involves two steps. First, a toner sensor and a cleaning blade will be attached to the frame. Second, the Japanese made transfer belt will be installed. The transfer belt is specifically produced in Japan. Fusing Unit The Fusing Unit permanently settles toner on the paper by applying heat and pressure to the migrated toner. It is a simple process and the Fusing Unit for the AC1 Series will be entirely assembled in China from Japanese and Chinese parts. Main Frame The shell of the main frame will be made from steel sheets formed in China on Japanese dies. The Main Frame will be completely built in Japan. The engine, I/O board, BICU, and operation panels, as well as the exterior covers for the Main Frame, will be installed in Japan. The software for all PCBs will be supplied by Ricoh Japan. You request an origin determination that the subject photocopying machine is the country of origin Japan i.e., if the “substantial configuration” is performed in Japan. Issue What is the country of origin of the subject photocopying machines for the purpose of U.S. Government procurement? Law and Analysis Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 *et seq.* , which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 *et seq.* ), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B): An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if

(i)it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or

(ii)in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed. *See also* 19 CFR 177.22(a). In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article. *Belcrest Linens* v. *United States,* 573 F. Supp. 1149 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983), *aff'd,* 741 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will generally not result in a substantial transformation. *See* C.S.D. 80-111, C.S.D. 85-25, C.S.D. 89-110, C.S.D. 89-118, C.S.D. 90-51, and C.S.D. 90-97. In C.S.D. 85-25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), CBP held that for purposes of the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), the assembly of a large number of fabricated components onto a printed circuit board in a process involving a considerable amount of time and skill resulted in a substantial transformation. In that case, in excess of 50 discrete fabricated components (such as resistors, capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits, sockets, and connectors) were assembled. Whether an operation is complex and meaningful depends on the nature of the operation, including the number of components assembled, number of different operations, time, skill level required, attention to detail, quality control, the value added to the article, and the overall employment generated by the manufacturing process. The courts and CBP have also considered the essential character of the imported article in making these determinations. *See Uniroyal, Inc.* v. *United States,* 542 F. Supp. 1026, 3 CIT 220, 224-225

(1982)(where it was determined that imported uppers were the essence of a completed shoe) and *National Juice Products Association, et al* v. *United States,* 628 F. Supp. 978, 10 CIT 48, 61

(1986)(where the court addressed each of the factors (name, character, and use) in finding that no substantial transformation occurred in the production of retail juice products from manufacturing concentrate). In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative. CBP has held in a number of cases involving similar merchandise that complex and meaningful assembly operations involving a large number of components result in a substantial transformation. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HRL”) 563491 (February 8, 2007), we addressed the country of origin of certain digital color multifunctional systems manufactured by Sharp and assembled in Japan of various Japanese—and Chinese—origin parts. In that ruling, we determined that color multifunctional systems were a product of Japan based on the fact that “although several subassemblies are assembled in China, enough of the Japanese subassemblies and individual components serve major functions and are high in value, in particular, the transfer belt, control box unit, application-specific integrated circuits, charged couple device, and laser diodes.” Further we found that the testing and adjustments performed in Japan were technical and complex and the assembly operations that occurred in Japan were sufficiently complex and meaningful. Thus, through the product assembly and testing and adjustment operations, the individual components and subassemblies of Japanese and foreign-origin were subsumed into a new and distinct article of commerce that had a new name, character, and use. *See also* HRL 562936, dated March 17, 2004. In HRL 561734, dated March 22, 2001, CBP held that certain multifunctional machines (consisting of printer, copier, and fax machines) assembled in Japan were a product of that country for the purposes of U.S. government procurement. The multifunctional machines were assembled from 227 parts (108 parts obtained from Japan, 92 from Thailand, 3 from China, and 24 from other countries) and eight subassemblies, each of which was assembled in Japan. *See also* HRL 561568, dated March 22, 2001. Based on the facts and law in this case, we find that the assembled AC1 copiers are products of Japan for the purposes of U.S. Government procurement. Out of eight

(8)subassemblies, only three

(3)will be put together in China. Although the Developer Unit and the Transfer Unit will be assembled in China, we find that enough of the Japanese subassemblies and individual components serve major functions and are high in value, in particular, the transfer belt, Controller, ASCIS, CCD, laser diode, and Photoconductor Unit. In making this determination, we particularly note that the Controller Unit and the Photoconductor Unit are being assembled in Japan, with the Photoconductor Unit made entirely out of Japanese parts and the Controller Unit containing mostly Japanese products. Additionally, AC1's scanning and laser scanning units will be assembled in Japan, using a CCD, laser diodes, f-theta mirror, BTL, and collimator lens of Japanese origin. The Developer Unit subassembly is also important to the performance of photocopying machines. Although the developer unit will be assembled in China, the developer roller and developer doctor, 2 key components of the unit, are of Japanese origin. Similarly, even though the Transfer Unit is partially assembled in China, the transfer belt itself is a Japanese part. We further note that the testing and adjustments performed in Japan are technical, complex, and time consuming. Based on your submission, it is evident that a large variety of adjustments are made to each subassembly prior to and during the final copier assembly process. These tests and adjustments utilize technologically advanced equipment and firmware, such as the SVT, LD Checker, and LSU Checker. The tests and adjustments will consume nearly one-third of the total final assembly time for AC1 copiers. Finally, the assembly operations that occur in Japan are sufficiently complex and meaningful. Through the product assembly and testing, the individual components and subassemblies of Japanese and foreign origin are subsumed into a new and distinct article of commerce that has a new name, character, and use. Therefore, we find that the country of origin of the AC1 series copiers for the purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Japan. Holding Based on the facts of this case, we find that the processing in Japan substantially transforms the non-Japanese components. Therefore, the country of origin of the AC1 Series photocopying machines is Japan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement. Notice of this final determination will be given in the **Federal Register** , as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31 that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days after publication of the **Federal Register** Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade. Sincerely, Sandra L. Bell, *Executive Director, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade.* [FR Doc. E8-13544 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2008-N0142; 30120-1113-0000-F6] Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of permit applications; request for comments. SUMMARY: The following applicants have applied for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Regional Director, Attn: Peter Fasbender, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056; electronic mail, *permitsR3ES@fws.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Fasbender

(612)713-5343. Information Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) (Act), with some exceptions, prohibits activities affecting endangered species unless authorized by a permit from the Service. Before issuing a permit, we invite public comment on it. Accordingly, we invite public comment on the following applicants' permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the regulations governing the taking of endangered species (50 CFR 17). Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application to the address shown in ADDRESSES . Permit Number: TE842313 Applicant: Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois. The applicant requests a permit renewal to take Hine's emerald dragonfly ( *Somatochlora hineana* ) throughout the species' range in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. This permit renewal is requested to continue long-term scientific studies to determine the presence or absence of the species within suitable habitats, to document new population sites through surveys, genetic study, and the taking of voucher specimens to document populations. Proposed research activities are aimed at enhancement of recovery of the species in the wild. Permit Number: TE184740 Applicant: Theresa Sydney Burke, Beaver, West Virginia. The applicant requests a permit to take the Indiana bat ( *Myotis sodalis* ), Gray bat ( *Myotis grisescens* ), and Virginia big-eared bat ( *Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus* ) throughout the range of the species. The activities proposed involve capture and marking of individual bats to identify populations of this listed species and to develop methods to minimize or avoid project related impacts. The surveys are used to formulate project features aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild. Public Comments We solicit public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), we have made an initial determination that the activities proposed in these permits are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: June 3, 2008. Lynn M. Lewis, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. [FR Doc. E8-13601 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2008-N0141; 10120-1113-0000-F5] Endangered Wildlife and Plants; Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application to amend permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on the following application to amend an existing permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. DATES: We must receive your written data or comments by July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: Program Manager, Endangered Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Canterbury, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or by telephone (503-231-2063) or fax (503-231-6243). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following applicant has applied to amend an existing scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). We solicit review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public. Permit No. TE-043638 *Applicant:* U.S. Army Natural Resources Center, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii The applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to remove/reduce to possession (collect pollen and seeds) *Hedyotis coriacea* (kio'ele) and to take (collect eggs, rear in captivity, capture adults, photograph, release, and collect voucher specimens) the Hawaiian picture-wing flies *Drosophila aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. montgomeryi, D. obatai, D. substenoptera,* and *D. tarphytrichia,* in conjunction with research on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, for the purpose of enhancing their survival. This permit currently covers removal and reduction to possession of *Chamaescyce herbstii* (akoko), *Hesperomannia arbuscula* (no common name), *Phyllostegia kaalaensis* (no common name), and *Schiedea kaalae* (no common name); and take of the Oahu tree snails ( *Achatinella* spp.) and Oahu elepaio ( *Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis* ), for which notices were originally published in the ** Federal Register ** on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 41786), August 6, 2006 (71 FR 47242), and November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64665). Public Review of Comments Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments. We solicit public review and comment on this recovery permit application. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. Dated: May 23, 2008. Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-13486 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2008-N0111]; [40120-1113-0000-C2] Notice of Availability of a Technical Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rican Parrot for Review and Comment AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of document availability and opening of public comment period. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the technical agency draft revised recovery plan for the Puerto Rican Parrot ( *Amazona vittata* ). The technical agency draft revised recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria to be met in order to reclassify this species to threatened status and delist it under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We solicit review and comment on this technical agency draft recovery plan from local, state, and Federal agencies, and the public. DATES: In order to be considered, we must receive comments on the technical agency draft recovery plan on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: If you wish to review this technical agency revised draft recovery plan, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Caribbean Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, Puerto Rico 00622 (telephone

(787)851-7297 Ext. 231) or by visiting our Web site at *http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#plans* . If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by the following methods: 1. You may submit written comments and materials to the Project Leader, at the above address. 2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Caribbean Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, Puerto Rico 00622, or fax your comments to

(787)851-7440. 3. You may send comments by e-mail to Marelisa Rivera at *marelisa_rivera@fws.gov* . For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section. Comments and materials received are available for public inspection on request, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marelisa Rivera at the above address (Telephone 787-851-7297, ext. 231). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Once abundant and widespread on the Puerto Rican archipelago, the Puerto Rican parrot is considered one of the ten most endangered birds in the world. Largely green with a red forehead and blue flight feathers, the parrot is one of nine *Amazona* parrots occurring in the West Indies. The species is one of the smallest in its genus, measuring about 29 centimeters (11 inches) in length and weighing about 270 grams (10 ounces). Presently, a minimum of 25 individuals survive in the wild in the El Yunque National Forest

(YNF)in eastern Puerto Rico and 10 in the Río Abajo Forest

(RAF)in north central Puerto Rico. Two captive population facilities hold more than 225 individuals: the Iguaca Aviary and the José L. Vivaldi Aviary in eastern and west-central Puerto Rico, respectively. The Puerto Rican parrot is a fruit-eating cavity nester seldom seen far from forests. The decline of the parrot and its restricted distribution are due to many factors, but mostly due to widespread habitat loss (e.g., deforestation.) Due to its nesting requirements, it depends on mature forests with large cavity-forming trees. At present, in addition to low numbers and a limited distribution, major threats to this species are nest competition and predation of eggs and chicks by pearly-eyed thrashers ( *Margarops fuscatus* ), predation of fledglings and adults by red-tailed hawks ( *Buteo jamaicensis* ), predation by rats ( *Rattus rattus* and *R. norvegicus* ), parasitism by warble flies ( *Philornis pici* ), and the impact of hurricanes. Other threats include competition for cavities with European and Africanized honeybees ( *Apis mellifera* ). Many of the threats are being controlled through management strategies. Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are preparing recovery plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 *et seq.* ) requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide a public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into account in the course of implementing approved recovery plans. The objective of this technical agency draft revised plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of the Puerto Rican parrot, so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. As reclassification and recovery criteria are met, the status of the species will be reviewed and it will be considered for reclassification or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Public Comments Solicited We solicit written comments on the recovery plan described. We will consider all comments received by the date specified above prior to final approval of the revised recovery plan. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority: The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). Dated: April 24, 2008. Cynthia K. Dohner, Acting Regional Director. [FR Doc. E8-13580 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR-025-1110-MR-SSSS; 8-0118] Notice of Intent To Amend the Three Rivers Resource Management Plan and Conduct Public Scoping AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Burns District in Burns, Oregon, intends to amend the Three Rivers Resource Management Plan

(RMP)with an associated Environmental Assessment

(EA)that also analyzes effects of undertaking the Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Improvement Project (GSHIP) located in Harney County, Oregon. The objective of the proposal is to improve sage-grouse habitat and reestablish once open sagebrush habitats encroached upon by western juniper. The BLM also intends to consider allowance for harvest of downed western juniper trees south of U.S. Highway 20 and west of Oregon State Highway 205 for fuel wood, posts and poles, and for commercial harvest of juniper boughs for use in holiday decorating. Allowance for harvest of downed juniper trees and juniper boughs would amend the Three Rivers RMP. By this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the public scoping process. DATES: Scoping comments will be accepted for 30 days following publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Public notice will be provided when the Draft RMP Amendment and associated EA become available later this year (2008). Written comments will also be accepted throughout the planning process at the address below. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to GSHIP/RMP Amendment Lead, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738; fax to

(541)573-4411; or e-mail to *Joan_Suther@or.blm.gov.* Comments, including the names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Burns District Office during regular business hours 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published as part of the Decision. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GSHIP/RMP Amendment Project Lead, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738;

(541)573-4503; Fax

(541)573-4411; e-mail *Joan_Suther@blm.gov* ; or visit the Burns District Web site at *http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/burns/plans/index.php.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSHIP project was developed from management objectives identified in the Three Rivers RMP. The Three Rivers Plan directs BLM to: “* * * restore, maintain, or enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife species habitat within the Resource Area” (WL-7.2); “* * * maintain, restore or enhance the habitat of candidate, State listed and other sensitive species to maintain the populations at a level which will avoid endangering the species and the need to list the species by either State or Federal governments” (SSS-2); and “* * * maintain, restore or enhance the diversity of plant communities and plant species in abundances and distributions, which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous plant species within the Resource Area” (V-1). In addition to direction from the Three Rivers RMP, managers are directed to meet management objectives and guidelines set forth in the Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems Management Guidelines (2001). These management objectives and guidelines include: “* * * maintain and enhance existing sage-grouse habitats, use mechanical treatment or prescribed fire to remove juniper where it has invaded into * * * sites with mountain big sagebrush and/or low sagebrush; and vegetation manipulations should benefit the long-term health of sage-grouse habitat.” Greater sage-grouse have been declining across much of their native range for decades due to habitat modification and fragmentation. Changes to habitat and habitat fragmentation have come from both natural and human causes. Human caused habitat change and fragmentation have resulted from urban sprawl, rangeland modification, and infrastructure development (i.e., power lines, highways, etc.). Natural habitat changes have been induced through fire, climate change, and succession; however, even natural causes have been influenced by man to some degree. One cause of sage-grouse habitat loss in the Three Rivers Resource Area is due to western juniper encroachment into what were once sagebrush dominated landscapes. Historic grazing practices (which removed fine herbaceous fuels) and fire suppression activities at the turn of the century reduced influence of the fire regime in the project area. Fire was the principal factor controlling conifer encroachment into shrub-grassland communities in the Intermountain West prior to Euro-American immigration (110 to 130 years ago) (West 1999; Miller and Tausch 2001). As frequency and size of fires across the landscape lessened, juniper expanded into shrub-grassland communities with an overall loss in ecosystem function and a dramatic alteration in historic biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, fauna, and nutrient cycling (Bates *et al.* 1998). Recent inventories of western juniper in eastern Oregon indicate juniper woodlands and savannahs cover an area of over five million acres (Gedney et al. 1999). Comparisons with data generated by earlier inventories suggest the area supporting western juniper has increased fivefold since 1936. Harney County is one of four counties in Oregon that contain more than one-half million acres of western juniper woodlands. Sage-grouse are sensitive to juniper encroachment and have been shown to avoid juniper communities for nesting and winter habitat (Miller *et al.* 2005). Continued expansion of juniper will lead to further losses of suitable sage-grouse habitat. While the problem of juniper encroachment is prevalent across the Resource Area, the Glass Butte/Rye Grass area was selected to expand upon a small-scale project completed there in 2006. Initial scoping (March 1 to April 1, 2007) for the GSHIP expressed interest from the public in harvesting downed juniper for fuel wood, posts and poles. Additional preliminary issues and management concerns identified by BLM personnel and the public include management of Air Quality, Water Quality, Migratory Birds, Special Status Species fauna and flora, Noxious Weeds, Cultural Heritage and Hazardous Materials. An interdisciplinary approach will be used to develop the EA in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Disciplines involved in the project will include (but not be limited to) those with expertise in management of the aforementioned resources. Dated: June 11, 2008. Dana R. Shuford, Burns District Manager. [FR Doc. E8-13582 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-922-08-1310-FI-P; NDM 95212] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NDM 95212 AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Marathon Oil Company timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NDM 95212, Mountrail County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice. The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and

(e)of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to: • The original terms and conditions of the lease; • The increased rental of $10 per acre; • The increased royalty of 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate; and • The $163 cost of publishing this Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5098. Dated: June 11, 2008. Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section. [FR Doc. E8-13591 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH, that meet the definition of “unassociated funerary object” and “sacred object” under 25 U.S.C. 3001. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. In 1956, cultural items were acquired by The Cleveland Museum of Natural History from the Logan Museum, Beloit College, Beloit, WI. The two cultural items are one ceremonial wood bowl (CMNH 12888/CMNH 19888) and one silver brooch (CMNH 08169). Representatives of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan attributed the cultural items as Ottawa/Odawa. The bowl is well-made with a carved rim and knobs. The locality and date for the bowl are recorded as “Michigan, Emmet County, early 1900's.” In Odawa spiritual practices, ceremonial bowls have a wide range of use and are utilized in many different ceremonial activities. It is believed that manidok (spirits) reside in each individual bowl and are a part of the community. It is the Tribe's continued responsibility to take care of these bowls and use them in ceremonies for sacred reasons, as such Traditional Religious leaders of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan need to use these bowls in ceremonies for the Tribe. The one silver brooch (CMNH 08169) is made from German silver in the shape of a disk with punched designs of circles, stars, and ellipses. The locality and date for the brooch are listed as “Michigan, Emmet County, late 1800's.” Multiple archeological sites that are Native American burial sites or cemeteries in Michigan from the Historic Period contain an array of European trade goods, such as knives, glass beads and silver brooches (Halsey, 286). It is believed that the silver brooch in the possession of museum came from an Odawa grave based on similar objects found in other Odawa graves from Michigan. In addition, it is believed that the brooch is a grave item because it has been recorded as a Native American item and not just simply a piece of silver since the designation of such simple items to be of Native origin usually originates because it came from a Native American burial. Officials of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(B), the one cultural item described above is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and is believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual. Officials of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Lastly, officials of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary object and the sacred object and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary object and/or sacred object should contact Adriann Balok, Curator of Cultural Anthropology, The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1 Wade Oval Dr., University Circle, Cleveland, OH 44106, telephone

(216)231-4600, ext. 3294, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary object and sacred object to the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Cleveland Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan that this notice has been published. Dated: May 12, 2008. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13624 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. The human remains were removed from the area of Omaha, NE. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Field Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. In 1893, the Field Museum of Natural History purchased the skull of one individual from Ward's Natural Science Establishment of Rochester, NY (Field Museum of Natural History catalogue number 41882). Original Field Museum of Natural History records state that the human remains are “Sioux, killed 1861 (Omaha).” No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains have been identified as Native American based on the specific cultural and geographic attribution in Field Museum of Natural History records. The records identify the human remains as “Sioux” from Omaha, NE. While the Santee Sioux Nation is the only Federally-recognized Sioux Indian tribe in Nebraska at the present time, the 1861 date of death predates the establishment of the Santee Sioux Reservation in Nebraska. Other Sioux groups were present in Nebraska at that time. “Sioux” descendants are represented by the present-day Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Officials of the Field Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Field Museum of Natural History also have determined that, pursuant 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Helen Robbins, Director of Repatriation, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605-2496, telephone

(312)665-7317, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Field Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that this notice has been published. Dated: May 4, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13586 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C., 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession and control of the Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. The human remains were removed from various locations in southeastern Washington State. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group. Between approximately 1950 and 1970, human remains representing a minimum of 23 individuals were removed from various sites along the lower Snake and mid-Columbia Rivers by faculty or were donated to the Department of Anthropology at Washington State University. The human remains were assembled and used for a number of years in teaching human osteology. No known individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The collection of human remains has become known as the Former Washington State University Human Osteology Teaching Collection. Institutional history within the department, including conversations with the late Dr. Grover Krantz who assembled and used the collection, indicate that the human remains are from sites along the lower Snake and mid-Columbia Rivers in southeastern Washington State. Osteological evidence indicates that the 845 remains in the Former Washington State University Human Osteology Teaching Collection represent a minimum of 23 individuals of Native American ancestry. Furthermore, the human remains that were removed date to the late prehistoric period and historic sites along the lower Snake and middle Columbia Rivers. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, are descendants of the communities of the Native American people that used the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers. Based on linguistic, oral tradition, geographic and archeological evidence for the Columbia Plateau from prehistoric through the historic times, as well as consultation evidence, the officials of Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University have determined that the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, are culturally affiliated with the human remains in the Former Washington State University Teaching Collection. These above mentioned Indian Tribes have filed a joint claim for repatriation of the human remains. Officials of the Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of a minimum of 23 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remain should contact Mary Collins, Director, Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University, P.O. Box 644910, Pullman, WA 99164-4910, telephone (508)335-4314, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group may proceed after that date if no additional claims come forward. The Museum of Anthropology, Washington State University is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group that this notice has been published. Dated: June 3, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13578 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology, Claremont, CA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology, Claremont, CA. The human remains were removed from Kern County, CA. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology professional staff and University of California Los Angeles professional staff member Archeologist Gail Kennedy, in consultation with representatives of the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California (Tachi Yokut Tribe). In 1968-1969, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Kern Valley, Bull Run Creek along the west bank of the Kern River and directly west of the River Kern community, or six miles north of Kernville, Kern County, CA, in an attempt to protect the bones from erosion. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. This site has been identified as a habitation site of the Tubatulabal. The Tubatulabal were loosely organized into three discrete bands called Pahkanapil, Palagewan, and Bankalachi (Smithsonian, *Handbook of North American Indians* , Book 8, 1978). The Tubatulabal are considered Kern River Indians, speak an Uto-Aztecan language, and live in the Kern River/Lake Isabella area, which include the south fork (Palagewan) and the lower Kern River below the south fork (Tubatulabal). Their neighbors are the Kawaiisu and the Yokuts. The Bankalachi, which were a few miles from the Palagewan, resided in Yokuts territory. In 1857, the Kern River gold rush began in Palagewan territory. During 1862, a few Tubatulabal joined the Owens Valley Paiute in hostilities against the Whites, and about this time, a group of Koso Indians settled in the Tubatulabal area, intermarrying with the Kawaiisu. In 1863, American soldiers killed 35-40 Tubatulabal and Palagewan men near Kernville. Between 1865 and 1875, the Tubatulabal began to practice agriculture and in 1893, the majority of them and a few Palagewan survivors were allotted land in South Fork and Kern Valleys. From 1900 to 1972, many Tubatulabals moved to the Tule River Indian Reservation, north of the Kern valley region. It is reasonably believed that those that survived intermarried with the Yokut in the Kern County area. Descendants of these Yokut are members of the federally-recognized Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California (Tachi Yokut Tribe) and Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California. Officials of the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California and Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Don Lofgren, Director, Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology, 1175 West Baseline Road, Claremont, CA 91711, telephone

(909)624-2798, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology is responsible for notifying the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California and Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California that this notice has been published. Dated: May 4, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13569 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Rochester Museum & Science Center, Rochester, NY AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Rochester Museum & Science Center, Rochester, NY. The human remains were removed from Point Spencer, AK. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Rochester Museum & Science Center professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bering Straits Foundation, a non-profit organization representing the interests of the Bering Straits Native Corporation, Native Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Village of Brevig Mission, Native Village of Teller, Teller Native Corporation, Native Village of Wales, and Wales Native Corporation. At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were recovered from a grave at Point Spencer, near Cape Prince of Wales, AK, by Lt. Phillip J. Launer. The human remains were donated to the Rochester Museum & Science Center in 1945. No known individual was identified. Funerary objects documented as being collected are missing from the museum collection. Physical examination of the human remains indicates they are of Native American ancestry. Point Spencer is located at the end of a sand spit on the south coast of the Seward Peninsula in Western Alaska. Archeological evidence indicates a relatively stable population residing on the Seward Peninsula continuously for over 1,000 years. The 1893 U.S. Census listed a collective village on Point Spencer with a population of 485, of which 236 were Alaska Natives and 249 were foreign. The Alaska Native descendants of Point Spencer are members at the Native Village of Brevig Mission, Native Village of Teller, and Native Village of Wales. Officials of the Rochester Museum & Science Center have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Rochester Museum & Science Center also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Bering Straits Native Corporation, Native Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Village of Brevig Mission, Native Village of Teller, Teller Native Corporation, Native Village of Wales, and Wales Native Corporation. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Gian Carlo Cervone, Rochester Museum & Science Center, 657 East Avenue, Rocherster, NY 14607-2177, telephone

(585)271-4552, ext. 310, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Bering Straits Foundation on behalf of the Bering Straits Native Corporation, Native Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Village of Brevig Mission, Native Village of Teller, Teller Native Corporation, Native Village of Wales, and Wales Native Corporation may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Rochester Museum & Science Center is responsible for notifying the Bering Straits Foundation, Bering Straits Native Corporation, Native Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Village of Brevig Mission, Native Village of Teller, Teller Native Corporation, Native Village of Wales, and Wales Native Corporation that this notice has been published. Dated: May 12, 2008. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13595 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Rochester Museum & Science Center, Rochester, NY AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Rochester Museum & Science Center, Rochester, NY. The human remains were removed from Walworth County, SD. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Rochester Museum & Science Center professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. In the 1920s, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the Mobridge site (39WW1), Walworth County, SD, by W.H. Over. Mr. Over sold the human remains to the museum in 1927. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Osteological examination of the human remains indicates that they are of likely Native American ancestry. In *Mobridge Site Cemeteries: Controversy Concerning the Location of the Over and Stirling Burials* , Douglas W. Owsley identified a number of human remains from the Mobridge site as Arikara based on morphological traits (1981). Diagnostic architecture and artifacts found at the Mobridge site, including circular, semi-subterranean structures and Native-made glass pendants, indicate that the human remains were probably buried by the Arikara during the post-contact Coalescent Traditional period (A.D. 1675-1780). In 1870, the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan tribes were moved to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Descendants of the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan are members of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. Officials of the Rochester Museum & Science Center have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Rochester Museum & Science Center also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Gian Carlo Cervone, Rochester Museum & Science Center, 657 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14607-2177, telephone

(585)271-4552, ext. 310, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Rochester Museum & Science Center is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota that this notice has been published. Dated: May 12, 2008. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13594 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Akun Island, AK. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound professional staff and a consultant in consultation with representatives of the Akutan Tribal Council from the Native Village of Akutan. On July 17, 1974, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Akun Island, AK. The human remains were donated to the Slater Museum on January 3, 1975. The identity of the donor was recorded only as “Tim.” No known individual was identified. The 29 associated funerary objects are 19 nonhuman bones (some with fine cutmarks and others that have been worked), 8 worked stones, and 2 obsidian flakes. The individual is most likely of Native American ancestry as indicated by the association of the human remains with the worked points and stones. The geographical location where the human remains were recovered is consistent with the historically documented territory of the Native Village of Akutan. Furthermore, based on information provided during consultation with tribal representatives, there is a reasonable belief that the human remains share a common ancestry with members of the Native Village of Akutan. Officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the 29 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been place with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Native Village of Akutan Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Peter Wimberger, Slater Museum of Natural History, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416, telephone

(253)879-2784, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Native Village of Akutan may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Slater Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Native Village of Akutan that this notice has been published. Dated: May 12, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13567 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA. The human remains were removed from Pierce County, WA. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound professional staff and a consultant in consultation with representatives of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; and Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington. In 1933, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from Day Island in Pierce County, WA. The human remains were found in the Slater Museum collections with a note reading “Day Is., Pierce Co., Wn. Indian remains about 1933. Alcorn. To museum. Round Case.” No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The postcranial remains were examined by a contracted physical anthropologist who determined they represent one older adult male and one adult female. Ancestry could not be determined due to the lack of cranial remains. However, there have been at least four Native American burials reportedly found by local residents on Day Island since the early 20th century. Based on the likely provenience from museum records and previous finds of Native American burials in that area, officials of the Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, reasonably believe that the human remains are most likely of Native American ancestry. Day Island is located in the southeastern Puget Sound region, an area historically utilized by the Steilacoom, Puyallup, and Nisqually tribes. While the Indian Claims Commission

(ICC)found Day Island to be outside of the exclusive treaty-time territory of any one Native group, both the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Puyallup Tribe of Indians included Day Island within their original land claims presented to the ICC. While there is no known evidence that an ethnographic village was located on Day Island, evidence reviewed by the museum demonstrates Day Island was used as a resource procurement site by the Nisqually and Puyallup Tribes, as well as the Steilacoom people. There are three recorded ethnographic villages located within four miles of Day Island which were occupied by members of the Steilacoom, Puyallup, and Nisqually peoples. The Steilacoom are a non-federally recognized tribe who were signatories of the Treaty of Medicine Creek

(1854)and who were not granted exclusive reservation land. The Nisqually Indian Tribe provided evidence claiming residents of the Steilacoom villages at Clover Creek and Steilacoom (now Chambers) Creek had joined the Nisqually Indian Tribe after the Treaty of Medicine Creek. Evidence also shows that some residents of the Steilacoom Creek village joined the Puyallup Tribe. To the north of Day Island, across the Narrows in Wollochet Bay, was the third closest ethnographic village; this was considered by the ethnographer Marian Smith to be affiliated with the Puyallup Tribe (1941:207). The multiple affiliations of these nearby villages demonstrate joint use and occupation surrounding Day Island. Additionally, Day Island may have been used for burials of Native Americans interned at Fox Island during the Treaty Wars. Members of the Nisqually, Puyallup, Squaxin, and Steilacoom Tribes were reported to have been held there (Carpenter 1987). This evidence, in conjunction with the Indian Claim Commission's determination of the area as non-exclusive to any particular tribe, suggests Day Island is within the traditional territory of all three local groups: the Steilacoom, Nisqually, and Puyallup Tribes. The descendants of the Steilacoom, Nisqually, and Puyallup Tribes are members of the federally-recognized Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington, and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington. Officials of the Slater Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Slater Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Peter Wimberger, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416, telephone

(253)879-2784, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington and Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Slater Museum is responsible for notifying the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington; Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, Washington; and Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published. Dated: May 21, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13570 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ, and Arizona State University, School of Evolution and Social Change, Phoenix, AZ AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ, and in the possession of Arizona State University, School of Evolution and Social Change, Phoenix, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Dugan Ranch Ruin, Yavapai County, AZ. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Arizona State University, School of Evolution and Social Change (formerly Department of Anthropology) professional staff and Tonto National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona (collectively known as the “Four Southern Tribes”); Hopi Tribe of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. In 1968 and 1969, human remains representing a minimum of 17 individuals were removed from the Dugan Ranch Ruin [AZ O:13:0004 (ASU); AR-03-12-01-027] in Yavapai County, AZ. The site was excavated under a permit to the Southwestern Society for Indian Archaeology, Walnut City, CA, from the Tonto National Forest. The excavations were carried out by high school students from the Bassett Unified School District, Los Angeles County, CA, under the supervision of Charles H. Stephens. In the course of an investigation of the activities of Mr. Stephens by Law Enforcement officers of the Forest Service, the collections from the Dugan Ranch Ruin, including all excavated human remains and funerary objects, were recovered and transferred to the Department of Anthropology at Arizona State University for curation. No known individuals were identified. The approximately 50 associated funerary objects are pottery sherds. Dugan Ranch Ruin is a masonry room block with interior courtyards that was occupied principally in the Late Classical Period (A.D. 1300-1400) and was associated with the Verde Hohokam archeological culture in central Arizona based on the ceramics, architecture, and organization of the site. Based on oral traditions and continuities of artifactual materials, technology and architecture, officials of the Tonto National Forest have determined that the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and to, a lesser extent, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, have a shared group identity to the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects of the Hohokam archeological culture. In accordance with the *Plan for the Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Other Cultural Items from the Tonto National Forest Pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act* (as revised in 2001), it has been determined that the primary cultural affiliation of these human remains and associated funerary objects is with the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and that they will be repatriated to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, as the designated representative of the “Four Southern Tribes” for NAGPRA issues north of the Gila and Salt River Baseline in Arizona, which area includes the location of Dugan Ranch Ruin. Officials of the Tonto National Forest have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 17 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Tonto National Forest also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the approximately 50 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Tonto National Forest have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and/or associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Frank E. Wozniak, NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway Blvd., SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102, telephone

(505)842-3238, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Tonto National Forest is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published. Dated: May 21, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13574 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, CA, and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, CA, and in the possession of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Sunset Valley Site, Santa Barbara County, CA. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History and Los Padres National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California. In 1935, human remains representing a minimum of seven individuals were removed from the Sunset Valley Site in Santa Barbara County, CA, by Milton Snow and David Banks Rogers of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, as part of archeological investigations authorized by the Forest Service. The human remains were curated at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. The approximately 48 associated funerary objects are shell and bone ornaments, glass bead, shell fish hooks, eagle claws, stone vessels and tools, a projectile point, and pieces of pigment. The Sunset Valley Site consists of a large midden with possible habitation structures. The site was probably occupied in the early historic/mission period in California (A.D. 1769-1823). Based on the composition of the artifactual collection, site organization, the location of the site in the heart of the aboriginal lands of the Chumash and the probability that the site is one of the named Chumash villages, officials of the Los Padres National Forest have determined that the human remains and associated funerary objects from the Sunset Valley Site are culturally affiliated with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California. Oral traditions provided by representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California support cultural affiliation. Officials of the Los Padres National Forest have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Los Padres National Forest also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the approximately 48 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Los Padres National Forest have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Joan Brandoff-Kerr, Forest Archaeologist, Los Padres National Forest, Suite 150, 6755 Hollister Avenue, Goleta, CA 93117, telephone

(805)967-3481, ext. 215, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Los Padres National Forest is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California that this notice has been published. Dated: May 21, 2008. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13604 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR, and Oregon State University Department of Anthropology, Corvallis, OR AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the control of the U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR, and in the possession of the Oregon State University Department of Anthropology, Corvallis, OR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites on Army Corps of Engineers land within the Lost Creek Lake Dam project area on the Rogue River, Jackson County, OR. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Oregon State University Department of Anthropology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; Coquille Tribe of Oregon; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon; Klamath Tribes, Oregon (formerly the Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon); and Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. Native American cultural items described in this notice were excavated under Antiquities Act permits by the Oregon State University Department of Anthropology, Corvallis, OR, on Army Corps of Engineers project lands. Following excavations at the sites described below, and under the provisions of the permits, the Oregon State University Department of Anthropology was allowed to retain the collections for preservation. In 1972, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from site 35-JA-23, also known as the Fawn Butte Spring Site, Jackson County, OR, during excavations by Oregon State University prior to construction of the proposed Lost Creek Lake Dam. The excavations were conducted on Fawn Butte above an ephemeral branch of Lost Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River. No known individual was identified. The 147 associated funerary objects are 1 chalcedony knife, 1 projectile point, 1 projectile point tip fragment, 5 bifaces, 1 end scraper, 1 graver, 1 burin, 1 burin-like flake tool, 6 utilized flakes, 3 cores, 3 core reduction fragments, 119 debitage flakes and fragments, 1 unidentified lithic item, 1 bag of wood fragments, and 2 bags of burial dirt. Site 35-JA-23 is a multicomponent village that is believed to have been occupied as early as 1200 years B.P. to approximately A.D. 1800. Based on the location of the human remains within the site and the associated artifacts, the individual has been determined to be Native American. In 1972-1973, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from site 35-JA-25, also known as the Far Hills Ranch Site, Jackson County, OR, during excavations conducted by Oregon State University prior to construction of the proposed Lost Creek Lake Dam. The excavations were conducted below the mouth of Long Branch Creek on the west bank of the Rogue River. No known individuals were identified. The 19 associated funerary objects are 8 shell beads, 5 olivella beads, 1 pine nut bead, 2 shell pendants, 1 ulna awl, and 2 lithic fragments. Site 35-JA-25 is a small cemetery and village dating from before A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1700. The cemetery appears to have been used prior to A.D. 1400 and the village was primarily occupied between A.D. 1500 and A.D. 1700. Ninety-two additional human burials located on private property at the site were exhumed at an undetermined date prior to World War II, during construction of private ranch facilities, and re-interred approximately five miles to the north in Trail, OR. Based on the location of the human remains within the site and the associated artifacts, both individuals removed have been determined to be Native American. Ethnographic records suggest the areas surrounding sites 35-JA-23 and 35-JA-25 were likely occupied by the Takelma and possibly Southern Molala bands during the early Contact period. However, overlapping territories, shared use of resource gathering areas, possible territorial realignments through time and, ultimately, tribal conglomerations and mergers resulting from mid-19th Century treaty negotiations with the U.S. Government, make determination of the sites' cultural affiliation uncertain. The sites described above are within or near the traditional lands of the present-day Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon; Klamath Tribes, Oregon; and Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. The Coquille Tribe of Oregon has indicated both sites are located outside of their ancestral territory. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon traditionally inhabited the headwaters, valleys and estuaries of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Rivers along the central and south-central Oregon coast. The tribes spoke diverse dialects within the Hanis, Milluk, Athapascan, Kuitsch, and Siuslaw language groups. The tribes have been operating under a confederated government since signing a treaty with the U.S. Government in 1855. Many tribal members were removed to the Siletz Reservation, the Alsea sub agency, and other federal military encampments along the south-central Oregon coast during the mid to late-19th Century. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon were terminated from federal recognition in 1954 and restored in 1984. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, include at least 26 tribes and bands whose ancestral homelands span across western Oregon, southwestern Washington and northern California. The Grand Ronde tribes and bands include the Rogue River, Umpqua, Chasta, Kalapuya, Molala, Clackamas, Salmon River, Tillamook, and Nestucca, as well as other smaller groups. At the time of contact, the individual groups spoke 30 dialects of the Athapascan, Chinookan, Kalapuyan, Takelman, Molalan, Sahaptin, Salishan, and Shastan language families. In 1856-1857, the U.S. Government forcibly relocated the Grand Ronde peoples to the Grand Ronde Reservation at the headwaters of the South Yamhill River in Yamhill and Polk Counties, OR. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were first incorporated in 1935, terminated from federal recognition in 1954, and restored with tribal recognition in 1983. The Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, are a confederation of 30 bands whose ancestral territory ranged along the entire Oregon coast and Coast Range, inland to the main divide of the Cascade Range and south to the Rogue River watershed. The principal tribes include the Clatsop, Chinook, Klickitat, Molala, Kalapuya, Tillamook, Alsea, Siuslaw/Lower Umpqua, Coos, Coquille, Upper Umpqua, Tututni, Chetco, Tolowa, Takelma or Upper Rogue River, Galice/Applegate, and Shasta. The ancestors of the confederated tribes spoke at least 10 different base languages, many with strong dialectic divisions even within the same language. In general, five linguistic stocks - Salish, Yakonan, Kusan, Takelman, and Athapascan - are represented by the tribes. The tribes were forcibly removed from their homelands in 1855 by the U.S. Government and placed on the Siletz and Grand Ronde reservations. After having their tribal status terminated from federal recognition in 1954, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon were officially restored in 1977. The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon traditionally occupied the rugged, forested territory extending from the Cow Creek watershed in the Coast Range to the North and South Forks of the Umpqua River along the western slope of the Cascades. They spoke Takelma, a language in the Takelman-Kalapuyan division of the Penutian language stock. After treaty negotiations with the U.S. Government in 1853 led to subsequent hostilities and the removal of many tribal members to the Grand Ronde Reservation on the Yamhill River, a large group of Umpqua sought safety in remote areas of their traditional homeland. The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon was terminated as a recognized tribe by the federal government in 1954, and later restored to federal recognition in 1982. The Klamath Tribes, Oregon, consist of the Klamath, Modoc and Yahooskin tribes. Their ancestral territory includes much of south-central Oregon from the east slopes of the Cascades to the adjoining desert areas, northward to the Deschutes River headwaters and as far south as Mount Shasta in California. The tribes speak Klamath and Modoc, two closely-related dialects belonging to the Plateau branch of the Penutian language family. The tribes were removed to the Klamath Reservation immediately northeast of Upper Klamath Lake in the mid-1860s, terminated from federal recognition in 1954, and then restored as a federally recognized tribe in 1986. The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma and the Klamath Tribes, Oregon, have a shared ancestry. The traditional Modoc homeland consisted of some 5,000 square miles along what is now the California-Oregon border. Following the conclusion of the Modoc War in 1873, the Modoc people were relocated to the Quapaw Reservation in Oklahoma. In 1909, the Modoc were granted permission to return to Oregon. Those who returned became part of the Klamath Tribes, Oregon. The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma and the Klamath Tribes, Oregon, have formally agreed that repatriation of human remains from the historically documented territory of the Klamath Tribes should go to the Klamath Tribes, Oregon, for reburial. Officials of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of at least three individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the 166 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon; Klamath Tribes, Oregon; and Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Daniel Mulligan, NAGPRA Coordinator, Environmental Resources Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, P. O. Box 2946, Portland, OR 97208-2946, telephone

(503)808-4768, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon, and/or Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon, Coquille Tribe of Oregon, and Klamath Tribes, Oregon, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, have indicated their desire to defer their interest to the other mentioned Tribes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon; Coquille Tribe of Oregon; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon; Klamath Tribes, Oregon; and Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma that this notice has been published. Dated: May 21, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13577 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage, AK, and Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, AK AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage, AK, and in the possession of the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, AK. The human remains were removed from Amaknak Island and Unalaska Island, AK. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contractors working under the supervision of the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska. In 1950, human remains representing a minimum of 10 individuals were removed from the Eider Point site near Unalaska on Unalaska Island in the Fox Island group of the eastern Aleutian Islands, AK. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. During the 1950s or 1960s, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an undetermined site near Unalaska on Amaknak Island in the Fox Island group of the eastern Aleutian Islands, AK. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. According to museum records, the human remains from both sites were excavated by Dr. Ted Bank of Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, under federal permits. All excavations were done on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management authority at the time. In about 1998, the Museum of the Aleutians received the Western Michigan University archeological collections from Unalaska and Amaknak Islands, AK, including human remains that had been in the possession of the now-deceased Dr. Bank. In about 2003, human remains were moved to the University of Alaska, Anchorage, Anthropology Department. In 2004, the human remains were sent to the State of Alaska Office of History and Archaeology for inventory. Unalaska Island and nearby Amaknak Island have been inhabited for over 8,000 years by Aleut (Unangan) people. Based on geographical location, oral history, and archeological evidence, the human remains from these two islands are determined to be Native American and ancestors of the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska. Officials of the Bureau of Land Management have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 11 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Bureau of Land Management also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Robert E. King, Alaska State NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, 222 W. 7th Avenue, Box 13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7599, telephone

(907)271-5510, before July 17, 2008. Repatriation of the human remains to the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for notifying the Ounalaska Corporation and Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska that this notice has been published. Dated: May 21, 2008 Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E8-13584 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Review)] Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: *Effective Date:* June 6, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter 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 ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background.* On June 6, 2008, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (73 FR 11440, March 3, 2008) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 2 1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site. 2 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff determined that the changes in the conditions of competition warranted conducting a full review. *Staff report* . A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 26, 2008, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules. *Written submissions* . As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 3 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before July 1, 2008, and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by July 1, 2008. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II

(C)of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 3 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Anvil International, LP, and Ward Manufacturing, LLP, to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules. Issued: June 11, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-13528 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Notice is hereby given that on June 2, 2008, a proposed Settlement Agreement in the case of *In re ASARCO LLC, et al.* , No. 05-21207, Chapter 11, regarding the Iron Mountain Site located in Mineral County, Montana, near the Town of Superior, Montana, was lodged with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The United States, on behalf of the Forest Service, and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)alleged that they incurred past response costs, and will incur future response costs, under CERCLA in connection with the Site for which ASARCO LLC is liable. The Settlement Agreement for the Iron Mountain Site would provide a $500,000 unsecured claim for the Forest Service and a $1.7 million unsecured claim for the State of Montana. In addition, ASARCO LLC would agree to negotiate an Administrative Order on Consent with the Montana DEQ for the investigation and analysis of remedial options and to implement the remedy for portions of the Iron Mountain Site currently owned by ASARCO LLC. For thirty

(30)days after the date of this publication, the Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. 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. In either case, the comments should refer to *In re ASARCO LLC, et al.* , Iron Mountain Site, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-09141. During the comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site: *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Settlement Agreement 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 $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-13637 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Park System Resource Protection Act Notice is hereby given that the United States Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (“DOI”) has reached a settlement with Thomas G. Mundy, on behalf of himself and the M/V Sea Ya regarding claims for response costs and damages under the Park System Resource Protection Act (“PSRPA”), 16 U.S.C. 19jj. The United States' claim arises from the grounding of the vessel “Sea Ya” in Everglades National Park on September 3, 2001. The grounding injured Park resources. Pursuant to the Agreement, the United States will recover $150,000. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. 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 the Settlement Agreement between the United States and Thomas G. Mundy and the M/V Sea Ya, DOJ Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-08517. The proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined at Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733, and at the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Southeast Regional Office, Richard B. Russell Federal Building, 75 Spring Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Settlement Agreement 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 $2.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-13635 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on May 7, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (“CableLabs”), filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, JetBroadband, Brook, NY, has been added as a party to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593). The last notification was filed with the Department on January 4, 2007. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6577). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-13213 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—ASTM International-Standards Notice is hereby given that, on May 16, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between February 2008 and May 2008 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at *http://www.astm.org* . On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226). The last notification was filed with the Department on February 29, 2008. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 7, 2008 (73 FR 18812). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-13211 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.* (“the Act”), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 20 new standards have been initiated and 11 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at *http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/27-03-08.html* . On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). The last notification was filed with the Department on January 11, 2008. A notice was published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10065). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8-13214 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Craig H. Bammer, D.O.; Denial of Application On October 1, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Craig H. Bammer, D.O. (Respondent), of South Gulfport, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify the registration, on three grounds. Show Cause Order at 1-2. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on both February 28 and April 27, 2007, the Pinellas County, Florida Sheriff's Office had arrested Respondent and charged him with prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose, and that his conduct constituted acts inconsistent with the public interest. *Id* . at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4)). Next, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked Respondent's state medical license and that Respondent was therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he held his DEA registration. *Id* . (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that in July 2003, Respondent had materially falsified his renewal application for a DEA registration by failing to disclose that in 1999, he had surrendered his DEA registration and Ohio medical license based on allegations that he was “impaired by excessive or habitual use of drugs and alcohol.” *Id* . at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). On October 15, 2007, the Show Cause Order, which also informed Respondent of his right to a hearing, was served on him at the Pinellas County Jail, where he was then residing. 1 Since that time, neither Respondent, nor any one purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing. Because more than thirty days have passed since the service of the Show Cause Order and no request for a hearing has been received, I find that Respondent has waived his right to a hearing on the allegations. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I enter this Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make the following findings. *Id* . § 1301.43(e). 1 A courtesy copy of the Show Cause Order was also sent to Respondent's counsel. Findings Respondent held DEA Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, which expired on July 31, 2006. Respondent did not file a renewal application until August 8, 2006. Because Respondent's renewal application was untimely, I find that Respondent does not have a current registration. *See* 5 U.S.C. 558(c). Respondent does, however, have an application which remains pending before the Agency. On June 9, 1999, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his Ohio medical license to avoid further formal proceedings based on his failure to comply with a consent agreement with the Ohio Medical Board under which he was required to surrender his DEA registration and could not apply for a new registration absent the state board's approval. According to the records of the Ohio board, Respondent had admitted that he “suffered impairment due to excessive or habitual use of drugs and alcohol.” *See* Ohio Medical Board Formal Actions Against Craig Howard Bammer, at 2. Respondent eventually did surrender his DEA registration. On July 24, 2003, Respondent submitted an application to renew his DEA registration. 2 While on this application Respondent acknowledged that he had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings with respect to both his Ohio and Florida medical licenses, Respondent answered “no” to the question of whether he had “ever surrendered” his DEA registration. Moreover, according to the Agency's registration records, on his August 2006 application, Respondent again acknowledged the prior actions against his state licenses. The registration record does not, however, establish how Respondent answered the liability question related to his DEA registration. 2 By this date, Respondent had already regained a DEA registration, as a renewal application stated that “your crrent registration expires on 07-31-2003.” Renewal Application for Registration (Dtd. July 7, 2003). As for the other allegations, the investigative file establishes that in January 2007, an undercover officer obtained a prescription for Roxicodone, a schedule II controlled substance from Respondent without the latter having performed a physical examination. Moreover, the undercover officer also obtained a prescription for a third person who was not present. The investigative file does not, however, indicate what drug the prescription was for. The investigative file also indicates that in February 2007, the undercover officer obtained additional prescriptions for Roxicodone in exchange for the officer's agreeing to pay Respondent's electric bill. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested and charged with several counts of trafficking in illegal drugs, a felony offense under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. Ann. 893.135. According to the online records of the Pinellas County Courts, Respondent awaits trial on these charges. Moreover, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued an emergency order suspending Respondent's medical license. Thereafter, on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked Respondent's medical license. Discussion Under section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a registration “may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant * * * has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1). The Attorney General may also suspend or revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances.” *Id* . § 824(a)(3). Under agency precedent, the various grounds for revocation or suspension of an existing registration which Congress enumerated in section 304(a), 21 U.S.C. 824(a), are also properly considered in deciding whether to grant or deny a registration under section 303. *See The Lawsons, Inc.* , 72 FR 74334, 74338 (2007); *Kuen H. Chen* , 58 FR 65401, 65402 (1993). In this matter, the Order to Show Cause alleged three separate grounds for this proceeding. I conclude that it is unnecessary to address the allegations related to Respondent's prescribing of controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose. Instead, I find that because Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application for a DEA registration and lacks authority under state law to prescribe a controlled substance, he is not entitled to hold a DEA registration. Accordingly, his application will be denied. The Material Falsification Allegation Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application for a DEA registration when he failed to disclose that he had previously surrendered his DEA registration. As this Agency has repeatedly held, “ `[t]he provision of truthful information on applications is absolutely essential to effectuating [the] statutory purpose' of determining whether the granting of an application is consistent with the public interest.” *The Lawsons* , 72 FR at 74338 (quoting *Peter H. Ahles* , 71 FR 50097, 50098 (2006)). *See also Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Candor * * * is considered by the DEA to be an important factor when assessing whether a * * * registration is consistent with the public interest.”). A false statement is material if it “has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” *Kungys* v. *United States* , 485 U.S. 759, 770

(1988)(int. quotation and other citations omitted). Moreover, while the evidence must be “clear, unequivocal, and convincing,” the “ultimate finding of materiality turns on an interpretation of the substantive law.” *Id* . at 772 (int. quotations and other citation omitted). This Agency has previously held that “[a]n applicant's answers to the various liability questions are material because [it] `relies upon such answers to determine whether an investigation is needed prior to granting the application.’ ” *The Lawsons* , 72 FR at 74338 (quoting *Martha Hernandez* , 62 FR 61145, 61146 (1997)). Notably, in determining whether the granting of an application is in the public interest, the Agency is required to consider “[t]he applicant's experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances,” his “[c]ompliance with applicable State, Federal or local laws relating to controlled substances,” and “other conduct which may threaten public health and safety.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). And in making determinations with respect to these factors, DEA has repeatedly considered an applicant's or an existing registrant's history of abusing controlled substances. *See, e.g., Patrick K. Riggs,* 72 FR 71959 (2007); *Alan H. Olefsky* , 72 FR 42127 (2007); *Alan H. Olefsky* , 57 FR 928 (1992). I thus conclude that Respondent's failure to disclose the earlier surrender of his DEA registration was a material misrepresentation because it “ha[d] a natural tendency to influence the * * * decision” of the Agency as to whether to grant his application for a new registration. 3 Under DEA precedent, this act “provides an independent and adequate ground for denying” Respondent's application. *The Lawsons* , 72 FR at 74338; *Cf. Bobby Watts* , 58 FR 46997 (1993). 3 While Respondent indicated on 2003 application that both his Florida and Ohio licenses had been subjected to discipline, he further stated that the basis of the discipline was his “abuse of a non-controlled substance (Stadol nasal spray).” Stadol nasal spray contains butorphanol tartrate, and is a schedule IV controlled substance. *See* 21 CFR 1308.14(f). Respondent's statement was thus an additional misrepresentation. The Lack of State Authority Allegation As found above, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued an order which imposed an emergency suspension of Respondent's state medical license. Shortly thereafter, on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued a further order which revoked Respondent's state medical license. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in “the jurisdiction in which he practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (“[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * * the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, [or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of professional practice”). *See also id* . § 823(f) (“The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”). As these provisions make plain, possessing authority to dispense a controlled substance under the laws of the State in which a physician practices medicine is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. Because Respondent's Florida medical license has been revoked, he is without authority under state law to handle controlled substance and does not meet an essential prerequisite under the CSA for obtaining a new DEA registration. *See Richard Carino, M.D.* , 72 FR 71955, 71956

(2007)(citing cases); 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Accordingly, his application will be denied for this reason as well. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of Craig H. Bammer, D.O., for the renewal of his registration be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective July 17, 2008. Dated: June 6, 2008. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-13609 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 07-52] Benjamin Levine, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding On August 7, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Benjamin Levine, M.D. (Respondent), of East Brunswick, New Jersey. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BL3612480, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on three separate grounds. Show Cause Order at 1. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that:

(1)Respondent had materially falsified his renewal application for his current registration;

(2)Respondent lacked authority to handle controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practiced medicine and held his DEA registration; and

(3)Respondent had committed acts inconsistent with the public interest. *Id.* at 1-3. Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations and the case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)Gail A. Randall. Shortly thereafter, the Government moved for summary disposition on the ground that the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners had suspended Respondent's state medical license. Motion for Summary Judgment at 1-2. Respondent requested additional time to respond to the Government's motion. In his motion, Respondent did not deny that his state license had been suspended. Instead, Respondent noted that he was appealing the State board's order. Resp. Br. in Support of Motion for Additional Time at 3-4. Respondent also cited a litany of legal proceedings that he was litigating including a criminal case, a tort action, a motion for post-conviction relief of a 1996 conviction, a suit for libel and slander, another suit “related to the Medical Board and * * * malpractice insurance lawyers,” and a bankruptcy proceeding. *Id.* at 3-4. The ALJ, however, denied Respondent's motion (as well as his Renewed Request for an extension of time). Applying agency precedent, she also rejected Respondent's argument that the Agency should not revoke his registration because his state license was only temporarily suspended. ALJ Dec. at 6 (citing *Alton E. Ingram, Jr.,* 69 FR 22562, 22563 (2004)). Because “Respondent lack[ed] authority to practice medicine and handle controlled substances in New Jersey,” the ALJ held that “DEA lack[ed] authority to continue * * * Respondent's DEA registration.” ALJ Dec. at 7. The ALJ thus granted the Government's motion for summary disposition and recommended that I revoke Respondent's registration. The ALJ then forwarded the record to me for final agency action. Having considered the record as a whole (including Respondent's exceptions), I conclude that this case is now moot. It is undisputed that Respondent's registration expired on March 31, 2008. *See* Order to Show Cause at 1; *see also* Respondent's Counter-Statement of Material Facts at 1. Moreover, according to the registration records of this Agency, Respondent has not filed a renewal application. 1 I therefore find that Respondent is not currently registered with this Agency. 1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, *Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act* 80

(1947)(Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA's regulations, Respondent is “entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” § 5 U.S.C. 556(e); *see also* 21 CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this order, which shall begin on the date this order is mailed. Under DEA precedent, “ ‘if a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.’ ” *David L. Wood,* 72 FR 54936, 54937

(2007)(quoting *Ronald J. Riegel* , 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998)). Moreover, while I have recognized a limited exception to this rule in cases which commence with the issuance of an immediate suspension order because of the collateral consequences which may attach with the issuance of such a suspension, *see William R. Lockridge* , 71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), here, no such order was issued. Because there is neither an existing registration nor an application to act upon, and there is no suspension order to review, this case is now moot. 2 2 The dismissal of a proceeding on mootness grounds does not, however, have collateral estoppel effect in the event that Respondent reapplies for a DEA registration in the future. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that the Order to Show Cause issued to Benjamin L. Levine, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Dated: June 6, 2008. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-13617 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 07-40] William W. Nucklos, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding On June 18, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to William W. Nucklos, M.D. (Respondent), of Powell, Ohio. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's registration, BN2037314, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending application to renew his registration, on two grounds. First, the Show Cause Order alleged that on March 8, 2006, the State Medical Board of Ohio had suspended Respondent's state medical license. Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that on or about February 15, 2006, Respondent had been “convicted of ten felony counts of drug trafficking and the illegal processing of drug documents.” *Id.* ; *see also* 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2) & (a)(4). Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations; the matter was therefore assigned to Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ)Mary Ellen Bittner. Thereafter, the Government moved for summary disposition and to stay the proceeding on the ground that the Ohio board had suspended Respondent's medical license, and Respondent was thus without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he maintained his DEA registration. ALJ Dec. at 1-2. The Government supported its motion with a copy of the Notice of Immediate Suspension which had been issued by the Ohio Board, and which referenced Respondent's indictment and conviction on ten felony counts of trafficking Oxycontin, and ten felony counts of “[i]llegal [p]rocessing of [d]rug [d]ocuments.” Notice of Immediate Suspension and Opportunity for Hearing (Mar. 8, 2006) (citing Ohio Rev. Code 2925.03 & 2925.23). Respondent opposed the Government's motion. Respondent's principal contention was that his convictions had been reversed by the Court of Appeals of Clark County, Ohio, and that he had a pending request with the State Medical Board to vacate the suspension because it had been based on the criminal convictions. Respondent's Resp. at 1. The ALJ granted the Government's motion. According to the ALJ, there was no dispute that Respondent's state medical license remained suspended and that he was not “currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio.” ALJ at 3. The ALJ further explained that although Respondent had requested that the Ohio Board vacate his suspension, he “ha[d] not demonstrated that the suspension will be lifted.” *Id.* Reasoning that she was “compelled to grant the Government's motion” because Respondent's license had been suspended, the ALJ recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied. *Id.* Thereafter, the record was forwarded to me for final agency action. In reviewing the record, I have taken official notice of the Agency's records pertaining to Respondent's registration status. 1 According to the Agency's records, Respondent's registration expired on October 31, 2007. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has filed a renewal application, let alone a timely one. *See* 21 CFR 1301.36(i). Accordingly, I conclude that there is neither a registration nor an application to act upon. *Id.* 1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, *Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act* 80

(1947)(Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA's regulations, Respondent is “entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” 5 U.S.C. 556(e); *see also* 21 CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this order, which shall begin on the date this order is mailed. Under DEA precedent, “ `if a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.”' *David L. Wood* , 72 FR 54936, 54937

(2007)(quoting *Ronald J. Riegel* , 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998)). Moreover, while I have recognized a limited exception to this rule in cases which commence with the issuance of an immediate suspension order because of the collateral consequences which may attach with the issuance of such a suspension, *see William R. Lockridge* , 71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), here, no such order was issued. Because there is neither an existing registration nor an application to act upon, and there is no suspension order to review, this case is now moot. 2 2 The dismissal of a proceeding on mootness grounds does not, however, have collateral estoppel effect in the event that Respondent reapplies for a DEA registration in the future. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that the Order to Show Cause issued to William W. Nucklos, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Dated: June 6, 2008. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-13618 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Corrections Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement—Inmate Behavior Management: Implementation and Evaluation AGENCY: National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice. ACTION: Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement. SUMMARY: This project has two areas of focus: Assistance to selected jails in implementing the six elements of inmate behavior management and evaluation of the process and impact of implementation. The project award will be for a two-year period, and the project will be carried out in conjunction with the NIC Jails Division. The awardee will work closely with NIC Jails Division staff. DATES: Applications must be received by 4 p.m.

(EDT)on Friday, July 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 5007, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date as mail can be delayed due to security screening. Hand-delivered applications should be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. Persons delivering applications should go to the front desk and call

(202)307-3106, extension 0 for pickup. Faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted. However, electronic applications can be submitted via *http://www.grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of this announcement and the required application forms can be downloaded from the NIC Web page at *http://www.nicic.gov.* Hard copies of the announcement can be obtained from Rita Rippetoe. She can be reached by phone at 1-800-995-6423, extension 44222 or by e-mail at *rrippetoe@bop.gov.* All technical or programmatic questions concerning this announcement should be directed to Fran Zandi, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections. She can be reached by phone at 1-800-995-6423, extension 71070 or by e-mail at *fzandi@bop.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Overview and Background:* The National Institute of Corrections

(NIC)has identified the following six key elements in the effective management of inmate behavior in jails: Assessing the risks and needs of each inmate at various points during his/her detention; Assigning inmates to appropriate housing; Meeting inmates' basic needs; Defining and conveying expectations for inmate behavior; Supervising inmates; and Keeping inmates productively occupied. If a jail fully and properly implements all six elements, it should experience a significant reduction in the negative inmate behavior often experienced in jails, such as vandalism, violence, rule violations, and disrespectful behavior toward staff and other inmates. In December 2004, the NIC Jails Division published information on these six elements in the Resource Guide for Jail Administrators (available on NIC's Web site *http://www.nicic.gov* and in hard copy on request from the NIC Information Center at 800-077-1461). Also, the NIC Jails Division has conducted related training and technical assistance to a variety of jails over the last few years. This project will allow NIC to provide targeted assistance to three jails in implementing inmate behavior management and evaluate the implementation process and the impact of implementation on inmate behavior and perceived levels of safety within the jail. *Scope of Work:* The work to be accomplished through this cooperative agreement consists of meetings with NIC, selecting participating jails, visiting selected jails, gathering data, assisting jails in implementing inmate behavior management, attending the Inmate Behavior Management Training Program, and preparing and submitting reports. Following is a more through description of what is expected in each of these areas. *Meetings with NIC:* At the beginning of the project, the awardee (project director) will meet with NIC staff in Washington, DC for one day to discuss all project components, set criteria by which participating jails will be selected, and refine the evaluation strategy proposed in the awardee's application. The awardee will be expected to meet with NIC staff at least three more times during the course of the project. Two of the three remaining meetings may take place in conjunction with other project activities. The third meeting (one day) will take place in Washington, DC. Selection of participating jails: Based on the criteria set during the initial meeting, the awardee, in conjunction with NIC staff, will identify a variety of jails that are likely to meet the selection criteria. All three jail designs (linear/intermittent surveillance, podular/remote surveillance, and podular/direct supervision) must be represented among the selected jails. The awardee then will travel to 4-5 of these jails to determine final eligibility. *Initial visit to selected jails:* The awardee will travel to each selected jail to meet with the sheriff, jail administrator, the heads of the security, classification, and inmate programs functions, and other key officials to discuss the project, detail what will be involved and the potential implications for resources and staff assignments, outline the assistance that may be provided through the cooperative agreement and NIC, and discuss the data gathering and evaluation activities. The awardee will also work with jail officials to design a preliminary plan for the implementation of inmate behavior management. *Data gathering:* The awardee will gather data on negative inmate behavior and levels of safety in the jail as perceived by staff and inmates by at least three points: during the initial visit and meeting with jail staff, during the implementation process, and after inmate behavior management has been fully implemented. This will involve collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. *Assistance to jails in implementing inmate behavior management:* The awardee, in conjunction with NIC, will identify areas in which each jail requires assistance and will conduct up to four short-term technical assistance events for each jail. This may include an overall assessment of the jail's status regarding each element of inmate behavior management; assistance with developing and implementing an inmate classification system and a housing plan; assistance in designing an inmate supervision plan (including meeting inmates' basic needs, setting and conveying behavioral expectations, and developing strategies for increasing the quantity and improving the quality of staff interaction with inmates); assistance in developing strategies for keeping inmates productively occupied; or miscellaneous short-term technical assistance as needed. Each technical assistance event will generally require about 2-3 days onsite, 1-2 days of preparation, and 1-2 days of report writing. In addition to the assistance provided by the awardee, NIC will also fund teams of staff from each jail to attend its Inmate Behavior Management training program in Aurora, Colorado during the first quarter of the 2009 calendar year. Also, NIC will provide training on inmate behavior management to line staff and first-line supervisors at each jail on dates to be determined jointly by the awardee, NIC, and the jails. *Attendance at the Inmate Behavior Management Training Program:* The awardee will attend, at the expense of this project, the Inmate Behavior Management training program in Aurora, Colorado during the first quarter of calendar year 2009. The awardee will work with the teams from the selected jails to further define their preliminary implementation plans for inmate behavior management based on what the teams learn in the program. *Reports:* The awardee will submit written reports to NIC at the following times (at a minimum): After the initial meeting with each selected jail (including a description of the jail, an overview of the meeting, a copy of the jail's preliminary implementation plan, types of data collected, and conclusions drawn from the data collection); after the provision of on-site technical assistance to each jail; after each instance of data collection and analysis; and at the end of the project. The end-of-project report will describe the implementation process in each jail, identify the assistance provided to the jail from the grantee and NIC, and will discuss, at a minimum, factors that hindered or facilitated implementation, the quality of implementation in each jail, and the effects of implementation in terms of negative inmate behavior and levels of safety in the jail as perceived by staff and inmates. All reports will be submitted to NIC on disk in Microsoft Word format and in hard copy (4 copies). Reports of technical assistance provided to the jails will also be sent in hard copy (1 copy) to the jail that received the assistance. The final report must be professionally edited before it is submitted to NIC. *Application Requirements:* Applications must be submitted using OMB Standard Form 424, Federal Assistance and attachments. (Copies can be downloaded from the NIC Web page at *http://www.nicic.gov.* ) The applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced, and referenced to the project by the “NIC Application Number” and Title referenced in this announcement. Applicants must submit an original and three copies of the full proposal. The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial accounts. The narrative portion of the application should include, at a minimum: A brief paragraph indicating the applicant's understanding of the purpose of the document and the issues to be addressed; a brief paragraph that summarizes the project goals and objectives; a clear description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project and achieve its goals; a statement or chart of measurable project milestones and timelines for the completion of each milestone; a description of the qualifications of the applicant organization and a resume for the principle and each staff member assigned to the project that documents relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out the project; and a budget that details all costs for the project, shows consideration for all contingencies for the project; and notes a commitment to work within the proposed budget. *Applicants' Conference:* An applicants' conference will be held on Thursday, July 10, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

(EDT)at the NIC office, 500 1st Street NW., Washington, DC, 7th Floor. The conference will give applicants the opportunity to meet with NIC project staff to ask questions about the project and the application procedures. Attendance at the conference is optional and provisions can be made for telephone conferencing for those who will be unable to attend in person. Applicants who plan to attend or who would like to participate via telephone should call Fran Zandi, NIC Jails Division, Correctional Program Specialist, at

(800)995-6423 x 71070 by Tuesday, July 8, 2008 to confirm attendance. Authority: Public Law 93-415. *Funds Available:* NIC is seeking the applicant's best ideas regarding accomplishment of the scope of work and the related costs for achieving the goals of this solicitation. The final budget and award amount will be negotiated between NIC and the successful applicant. Funds may be used only for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. No funds are transferred to state or local governments. Funds will be awarded based on satisfactory performance of the awardee and upon the availability of funding in future years. *Eligibility of Applicants:* An eligible applicant is any private agency, educational institution, organization, individual, or team with expertise the described areas. Applicants or the applicant team must be able to competently address both areas of focus in this project: Assistance to selected jails in implementing the six elements of inmate behavior management and evaluation of the process and impact of implementation. The applicant or applicant team must demonstrate a thorough understanding of jails and common issues in managing inmate behavior; each of the six elements of inmate behavior management, as NIC presents and teaches it; the process of implementing the six elements in a jail; and the design and implementation of a strategy to evaluate both the process and outcomes of implementing the six elements of inmate behavior management. *Review Considerations:* Applications will be reviewed by a team of NIC staff. Among the criteria used to evaluate the applications are: Indication of a clear understanding of project requirements; background, experience, and expertise of the proposed project staff, including any subcontractors; clarity of the description of all elements and tasks in the project; practicality and sufficiency of timeframes allotted to complete tasks; technical soundness of project design and methodology; financial and administrative integrity of the proposal, including adherence to federal financial guidelines and processes; adequacy of budget detail, including consideration of all contingencies for the project and commitment to work within the proposed budget; and availability of project staff for meetings with NIC staff. *Number of Awards:* One. *NIC Application Number:* 08J65. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter, in box 4a of Standard Form 424, and on the outside of the envelope in which the application is sent. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 16.601. *Executive Order 12372:* This project is not subject to the provisions of the executive order. Morris L. Thigpen, Director, National Institute of Corrections. [FR Doc. E8-13553 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-36-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 11, 2008. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number); e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, *Attn:* OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, *Telephone:* 202-395-7316; *Fax:* 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Title:* CPS Volunteer Supplement. *OMB Control Number:* 1220-0176. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 63,000. *Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 5,300. *Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:* $0. *Description:* The Volunteer Supplement provides information on the total number of individuals in the U.S. involved in unpaid volunteer activities, measures of the frequency or intensity with which individuals volunteer, types of organizations for which they volunteer, the activities in which volunteers participate, and the prevalence of volunteering more than 120 miles from home or abroad. It will also provide information on civic engagement. For additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 15539 on March 24, 2008. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-13556 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Construction. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, E-mail *Bell.Hazel@dol.gov* . Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is responsible for the administration of three equal opportunity programs prohibiting employment discrimination and requiring affirmative action. The OFCCP administers Executive Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503); and the affirmative action provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212. The regulations implementing the Executive Order program are found at 41 CFR Parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4, 60-20, 60-30, 60-40, and 60-50. The regulations implementing Section 503 are published at 41 CFR Part 60-741. The regulations implementing VEVRAA are found at 41 CFR Part 60-250 and 41 CFR Part 60-300. These regulations require contractors to develop and maintain Affirmative Action Programs (AAP). OFCCP reviews these AAPs through its compliance evaluation process. For purposes of this clearance request, the programs have been divided functionally into two categories, construction and supply and service. This information collection request covers the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the functional aspects of the program involving construction. A separate information collection request covers the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for functional aspects of the program involving supply and service, and is approved under the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Number 1215-0072. On December 13, 2005, OMB approved without change this Information Collection through December 31, 2008. The December 13, 2005 submission included an internal assessment of the burden hours associated with the construction program. OFCCP updated the internal assessment and included the burden hour results of the internal assessment in this **Federal Register** Notice, for which OFCCP is seeking public comments. The results of the internal study, along with the public comments, will be incorporated in the final information collection requirement seeking a three-year approval. The Department of Labor invites comments on the accuracy of the estimated universe of 240,534 Federal contractor construction firms. OFCCP developed this estimate through a multi-step process. First, OFCCP obtained the total number of construction firms in the United States from statistics compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2002. The census compilation indicated that there were 601,339 construction firms in the United States. This total was calculated by adding Nonresidential building construction (NAICS 2362), Heavy and civil engineering construction (NAICS 237), Specialty trade contractors (NAIC 238), and Other specialty trade contractors (NAICS 2389). Because all construction firms are not covered contractors within OFCCP's jurisdiction, OFCCP developed an estimate of the percentage of firms that are covered contractors by examining the percentage of supply and service firms that are covered contractors. Employer Information Report (EEO-1) forms filed annually by many employers provide information on the supply and service universe of Federal contractors. Relying on this EEO-1 data, OFCCP found that there were 25,681 supply and service consolidated EEO-1 Reports filed in FY 2002. This is a reasonable approximation of the total number of supply and service firms in the United States. Of these firms, 10,498 (40.8%) indicated that they were Federal contractors. For these estimates, we assumed, based on the proportion of Supply and Service contactors that self-identified themselves on the EEO-1 Reports as federal contractors, that 40 percent of the construction firms would hold one or more federal or federally assisted construction contracts. Based on the above process, OFCCP estimated that 40.0% of the 601,339 construction firms, or 240,534 firms, are Federal or federally-assisted construction contractors. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to ensure that contractors develop and maintain Affirmative Action Programs. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* OFCCP Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Construction. *OMB Number:* 1215-0163. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions. *Total Respondents:* 240,534. *Total Annual Responses:* 240,534. *Average Time per Response, Recordkeeping:* 10.3 hours. *Average Time per Response, Reporting:* 0 hours. *Affirmative Action Program, Initial Development:* 43,290 hours. *Affirmative Action Program, Annual Update:* 162,360 hours. *Compliance Reviews:* 669 hours. *Total Burden Hours, Recordkeeping and Reporting:* 2,491,396. *Frequency:* Annually. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $84,099. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: June 12, 2008. Hazel M. Bell, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-13555 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held in Room 714 of the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate): *Visual Arts/Rosa Parks Sculpture Design* (application review): July 9-10, 2008. This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 9th and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on July 10th, will be closed. The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 28, 2008, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691. Dated: June 12, 2008. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E8-13557 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION Notice of Availability for Public Comment on NPREC Draft Standards AGENCY: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission announces the release and availability for public comment its Draft Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Lockups, Juvenile and Community Corrections Facilities. DATES: The comment period begins June 16, 2008 and closes on August 1, 2008. All comments must be received by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on Friday, August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: The preferred comment method is via the Microsoft Word form accessible at the NPREC Web site *(http://www.nprec.us).* This form can be downloaded and used to submit comments via mail, e-mail and/or fax. E-mailed comment forms should be sent to *comments@nprec.us.* To submit via mail, fill out the form, then print and mail to: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, 1440 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC, 20005-2111. Faxed forms should be sent to

(202)233-1089. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the comment process should be directed to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission at

(202)233-1090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (“NPREC” or “the Commission”) is a bipartisan panel created by Congress as part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The Commission is charged with studying federal, state and local government policies and practices related to the prevention, detection, response and monitoring of sexual abuse in correctional and detention facilities in the United States. Consistent with the Act, the Commission's recommendations will be designed to make the prevention of sexual abuse a top priority in America's jails, prisons, lockups, juvenile facilities, and other detention facilities. Since its creation, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive legal and factual study of the penological, physical, mental, medical, social and economic impacts of prison sexual abuse on federal, state and local government functions and on the communities and social institutions in which they operate. Upon completion of its study, the Commission will report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the President, Congress, the U.S. Attorney General and other federal and state officials. As a key component of its report, the Commission will include the statutorily required zero-tolerance standards. This notice is to announce the release of Draft Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Lockups, Juvenile and Community Corrections Facilities, for a public comment period of 45 days. Written comments about these draft standards are invited from the public, as well as affected agencies and organizations. These drafts can be accessed and downloaded from the NPREC Web site: *http://www.nprec.us.* Hard copies of the NPREC draft standards are available by mailing a request to the NPREC address, by telephoning

(202)233-1090, or by e-mail at *nprec@nprec.us.* Dated: June 11, 2008. Margaret M. Chiara, General Counsel, National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. [FR Doc. E8-13545 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306] Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering an application for the renewal of Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60, which authorize Nuclear Management Company (NMC), to operate Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, at 1650 megawatts thermal for each unit. The renewed licenses would authorize the applicant to operate Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current licenses. The current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2, expire on August 09, 2013, and October 29, 2014, respectively. NMC submitted the application dated April 11, 2008 and supplemented May 16, 2008, pursuant to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* CFR Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. A Notice of Receipt and Availability of the license renewal application

(LRA)was published in the **Federal Register** on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25034) as corrected on May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30423). The Commission's staff has determined that NMC has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR sections 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c) to enable the staff to undertake a review of the application, and the application is therefore acceptable for docketing. The current Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306 for Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60, respectively, will be retained. The determination to accept the license renewal application for docketing does not constitute a determination that a renewed license should be issued, and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds. Before issuance of each requested renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been, or will be, taken with respect to:

(1)Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and

(2)time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB), and that any changes made to the plant's CLB in order to comply with 10 CFR 54.29(a) are in accord with the Act and the Commission's regulations. Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” dated May 1996. In considering the LRA, the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. The notice of intent will be the subject of a separate **Federal Register** notice. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this **Federal Register** Notice, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the renewal of the license. Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and is accessible from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *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's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov.* If a request for a hearing/petition for leave to intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the Commission, presiding officer, or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will rule on the request and/or petition. In the event that no request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within the 60-day period, the NRC may, upon completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings required under 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54, renew the license without further notice. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, taking into consideration the limited scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:

(1)The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(2)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(3)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the requestor/petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The requestor/petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. The Commission requests that each contention be given a separate numeric or alphabetic designation within one of the following groups:

(1)Technical (primarily related to safety concerns);

(2)environmental; or

(3)miscellaneous. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more requestors/petitioners seek to co-sponsor a contention or propose substantially the same contention, the requestors/petitioners will be required to jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requestors/petitioners with respect to that contention. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. 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 (Aug. 28, 2007). 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 of E-Filing, at least ten

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

(301)415-1677, to request

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

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

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

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must submit an exemption request, 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 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 submission. Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html* on the NRC's Web site. Copies of the application to renew the operating licenses for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html,* the NRC's Web site while the application is under review. The application may be accessed in ADAMS through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* under ADAMS Accession Number ML081130663. As stated above, persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may 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.* The NRC staff has verified that a copy of the LRA is also available to local residents near Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, at the Red Wing Public Library, 225 East Avenue, Red Wing, MN 55066. Attorney for Nuclear Management Company

(NMC)LLC, Mr. Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Samson Lee, Acting Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-13588 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.

(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from May 22, 2008 to June 4, 2008. The last biweekly notice was published on June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31717). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. 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 in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

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

(301)415-1677, to request

(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 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 submission. For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* *AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey.* *Date of amendment request:* October 18, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification

(TS)4.5.M.1.e.1, “Containment System,” concerning the mechanical snubbers functional test acceptance criteria. Specifically, the change would replace the snubber breakaway test with a drag force test. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change modifies Technical Specifications

(TS)Section 4.5.M.1.e.1 concerning the Mechanical Snubbers Functional Test Acceptance Criteria, specifically, replacement of the snubber breakaway test with the drag force test. [Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part] 50.55a(b)(3)(v) permits the use of [American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)Operations and Maintenance

(OM)Code], Subsection ISTD, in lieu of the ASME Code, Section XI, for the inservice testing of snubbers. Subsection ISTD of the ASME OM-Code, “Preservice and Inservice Examination and Testing of Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants,” provides the requirements for snubber testing. A requirement to perform the breakaway test no longer exists in the ASME OM Code. Current ASME OM Code requirements require a drag force test. The drag force test is a more encompassing representation of overall snubber resistance to thermal movement because it is performed over the entire working range of the snubber stroke. Therefore, a drag force test should be used rather than the breakaway or “force that initiated free movement” as currently worded in the [Oyster Creek Generating Station] TS. In addition to the above, the breakaway test is intended to be performed prior to any movement of the snubber. This is an impractical test situation, because the snubber has typically moved while the unit is cooling down, and the piping experiences thermal cycles. The percentage of snubbers sampled and the period between inspections has not changed. Also, the way the snubber functions has not changed, only the method of testing that ensures continued functionality of it. Elimination of the breakaway test will not reduce the ability of snubbers to perform their intended design function. Drag force testing as defined in the TS will ensure adequate demonstration of snubber performance. Also, this change will not increase the probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. Piping systems that include snubbers in their configuration will still be capable of performing their safety function. Therefore, the proposed change[s do not involve a significant increase in] the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not affect the assumed accident performance of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary, nor any plant structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. The change deletes the breakaway test for snubbers, which is no longer required by the ASME OM Code, and replaces it with a drag force test to ensure snubber functionality consistent with the ASME OM Code. No set points are being changed which would alter the dynamic response of plant equipment, and the design function of systems associated with snubbers will not be altered. Accordingly, no new failure modes or accident initiators are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change[s do] not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not affect the function of any safety systems or response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed which alter the set points at which protective actions are initiated, and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation. The snubbers will continue to perform their design function. This change deletes the breakaway test for snubbers, which is no longer required by the ASME OM Code, and replaces it with a drag force test. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. *AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey.* *Date of amendment request:* March 10, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would relocate the pressure and temperature limit curves from the Technical Specifications

(TSs)to the licensee controlled “Pressure and Temperature Limits Report.” Additionally, the proposed change would update other TS references from the TS contained curves to those in the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change modifies the Technical Specifications

(TS)Section 1.0 (“Definitions”), Limiting Conditions for Operation Section 3.3 (“Reactor Coolant”), Surveillance Requirement 4.3 (“Reactor Coolant”), and 6.0 (“Administrative Controls”), to delete reference to the [Pressure-Temperature (P-T)] curves and include reference to the [pressure-temperature limits report (PTLR)]. This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, “Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,” dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and temperature curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A (“Revised PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR”). [As stated in] an NRC [safety evaluation report] dated February 6, 2007, “the NRC staff has found that SIR-05-044 is acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for General Electric designed boiling water reactors to the extent specified and under the limitations delineated in the [topical report (TR)] and in the enclosed final [safety evaluation].” As part of this change, the PTLR based on the methodology and template provided in SIR-05-044 is being supplied for review. The P-T curves utilize the methodology of SIR-05-044-A. The NRC has established requirements in Appendix G to [Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50] to protect the integrity of [the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB)] in nuclear power plants. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, provides the NRC staff's criteria for the design and implementation of RPV material surveillance programs for operating lightwater reactors. Implementing this NRC-approved methodology does not reduce the ability to protect the RCPB as specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new methodology for calculating P-T curves from the TS to the PTLR provides an equivalent level of assurance that the RCPB is capable of performing its intended safety functions. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not affect the assumed accident performance of the RCPB, nor any plant structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. The change in methodology ensures that the RCPB remains capable of performing its safety functions. No setpoints are being changed which would alter the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are introduced which could introduce the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, “Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,” dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and temperature curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A (“Revise PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR”). In an NRC SER dated February 6, 2007, the NRC staff has found that SIR-05-044 is acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for General Electric designed boiling water reactors. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not affect the function of the RCPB or its response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed which alter the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated, and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation. This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, “Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,” dated April 2007 for preparation of the P-T curves. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. *Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin.* *Date of amendment request:* April 14, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications to allow the main steam line isolation

(SLI)circuitry to be inoperable when both Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs) are closed and de-activated. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed amendment would allow the SLI instrumentation to be inoperable when both MSIVs are already closed and de-activated. When both MSIVs are closed, the SLI function is already accomplished and the SLI instrumentation is no longer needed. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a functional change in the methods used to respond to any evaluated plant accident. The isolation function is accomplished either by SLI instrumentation or manually closing the MSIVs. No new or different equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being removed or modified. The proposed amendment would not alter the parameters within which the plant is normally operated or the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions. With both MSIVs closed, the SLI instrumentation is not required to be operable since its safety function has already been accomplished. Addition of the proposed new footnote would not adversely impact any of the previously evaluated accidents described in the KPS [Kewaunee Power Station] USAR [Updated Safety Analysis Report]. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a functional change in the methods used to respond to plant accidents or transients. No new or different equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being removed or modified. The proposed amendment would not alter the parameters within which the plant is normally operated or the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions. The design function of the SLI instrumentation would not be changed. With both MSIVs closed, the safety function associated with the SLI instrumentation has already been accomplished. Allowing the SLI instrumentation to be inoperable when both MSIVs are closed and de-activated does not functionally impact how the plant would respond to any previously evaluated accidents. No new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases are introduced by the proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Margin of safety is established through the design of the systems, structures, and components, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment of setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The proposed TS amendment does not adversely impact any plant structure, system or component that is relied upon for accident mitigation. The design of the SLI function is not affected by the proposed change. Closure and de-activation of the MSIVs represents an increase in functional margin as a deactivated valve has no opportunity to be inadvertently opened. The proposed amendment also does not adversely affect the setpoints or parameters under which the SLI instrumentation is operated. Station operations and the SLI function would not be adversely affected by the proposed change, because the isolation function capability is maintained throughout the applicable modes of operation. The proposed change does not alter any design basis or safety limit established in the KPS USAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the KPS TS does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219. *NRC Branch Chief:* Lois James. *Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County, Connecticut.* *Date of amendment request:* August 15, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification

(TS)3.3.3.1, “Radiation Monitoring,” TS 3.4.6.1, “Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems,” and Surveillance Requirements 4.4.6.1, “Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems.” Specifically, the proposed amendment would remove credit for the gaseous radiation monitor for Reactor Coolant System leakage detection. Improvements in nuclear fuel reliability over time have resulted in the reduction of effectiveness of the monitors in detecting very small leaks and very small changes in the leakrate. The proposed change also addresses the condition when the remaining monitoring systems are all inoperable. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make any hardware changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure or component (SSC). The containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor is not credited for use in the initiation of any protective functions. The proposed change only removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor for meeting the operability requirement for TS 3.4.6.1. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not increased. The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment, thus ensuring that leakage due to cracks would continue to be identified prior to breakage and the plant shutdown accordingly. Additionally, the function of this equipment is not modeled in the MPS2 or MPS3 probabilistic risk assessment and therefore its removal from the Technical Specifications has no impact on core damage frequency or large early release frequency. Therefore, the consequences of an accident are not increased. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed change does not affect any SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed change does not make any alteration to any RCS [Reactor Coolant System] leakage detection components. The proposed change only removes the gaseous channel of the containment atmosphere radioactivity monitor for meeting the operability requirement for TS 3.4.6.1. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with capability to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS, additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are available. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based on the above, DNC [Dominion Nuclear Connecticut] concludes that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, and a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Waterford, CT 06141-5127. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. *Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois.* *Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois.* *Date of amendment request:* March 18, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would revise the technical specification

(TS)surveillance requirement

(SR)numbering for two engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS) instrumentation SRs that were revised in previous license amendments issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)staff. The revised numbering scheme in the previous amendments introduced inconsistencies within TS 3.3.2. In addition, the proposed amendments request an extension of the 120-day period for implementation of the changes to SRs 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.7, approved in the previous license amendments, to 30 days following approval of the proposed amendments. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature, and as such, do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not modify any system interface, nor will they affect the probability of any event initiators. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Since the proposed changes are purely administrative, the changes will not alter or prevent structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event, within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed amendment does not change the response of the plant to any accidents and has no impact on the reliability of the ESFAS signals. The ESFAS will remain highly reliable, and the proposed changes will not result in an increase in the risk of plant operation. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, there will not be an increase in the consequences of any accidents. 2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical alteration to any plant system nor will there be any change in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident analysis assumptions. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any [accident] previously evaluated. 3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the departure from nucleate boiling limits, fuel centerline temperature, or any other margin of safety. Redundant ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard of the signals that provide engineered safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Russell Gibbs. *FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa.* *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would add a Surveillance Requirement to Technical Specification

(TS)Section 3.7.2, “RWS [River Water Supply] System and UHS [Ultimate Heat Sink],” to require surveillances of the Cedar River depth to assure UHS operability. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Technical Specifications currently require surveillance of river level elevation and temperature. These surveillance requirements are unchanged. Adding an additional surveillance requirement to measure river depth will not adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. Adding TS Surveillance Requirements to measure river depth does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated and does not represent a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not alter or eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Per the DAEC [Duane Arnold Energy Center] UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report], adequate river flow into the lntake Structure must be available to meet emergency cooling requirements and assure UHS OPERABILITY. Adequate river flow can be assured by requiring a minimum river depth of 6.5 inches or greater at the lntake Structure. The proposed Surveillance Requirements ensure margin to the minimum flow by specifying a depth of 12 inches or greater at the lntake Structure. Adding additional surveillance requirements for river depth will not adversely impact any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Marjan Mashhadi, Florida Power & Light Company, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004. *NRC Branch Chief:* Lois M. James. *Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska* . *Date of amendment request:* April 22, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications

(TS)2.7, “Electrical Systems,” Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)2.7(2)j. to clarify that a single period of operability for one emergency diesel generator

(DG)is limited to 7 consecutive days and specify that the cumulative total time of inoperability for both DGs during any calendar month cannot exceed 7 days. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes clarify the AOT [allowed outage time] of TS 2.7(2)j for DG inoperability but are not less restrictive. Allowed outage times and editorial changes such as these are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised AOT are no different than the consequences of the same accident during the existing AOT. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed changes clarifying the AOT of TS 2.7(2)j for DG inoperability do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. *NRC Branch Chief:* Thomas G. Hiltz. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)the applications for amendment,

(2)the amendment, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . *AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey* . *Date of amendment request:* May 16, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The amendment revises the Oyster Creek Technical Specifications

(TSs)3.5.A.6, “Primary Containment.” Specifically, the amendment revises the actions taken and applicability of the requirement to inert the primary containment atmosphere to less than 4 percent oxygen (O 2 ) concentration. Additionally, the amendment introduces definitions for thermal power and rated thermal power including changes for their consistent use within the TSs. *Date of issuance:* May 30, 2008. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.:* 266. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-86:* The amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR 13023). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Arizona Public Service Company,* *et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units No. 2, Maricopa County, Arizona* . *Date of application for amendments:* November 14, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications by adding Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.0.8 on the inoperability of snubbers using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process. The amendments also made conforming changes to TS LCO 3.0.1. These amendments are consistent with the NRC-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Traveler No. 372, Revision 4, “Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.” *Date of issuance:* May 30, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1—170, Unit 2—170, and Unit 3—170. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:* The amendments revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5217). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina* . *Date of application for amendments:* February 15, 2008. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments authorize a change to the UFSAR requiring an inspection of each ice condenser within 24 hours of experiencing a seismic event greater than or equal to an operating basis earthquake within the 5-week period after ice basket replenishment has been completed to confirm that adverse ice fallout has not occurred which could impede the ability of the ice condenser lower inlet doors to open. This action would be taken, in lieu of requiring a 5-week waiting period following ice basket replenishment, prior to beginning ascension to power operations. *Date of issuance:* May 28, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 241, 236. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10302). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana* . *Date of amendment request:* November 15, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment removed Surveillance Requirement

(SR)3.8.3.6 from the Technical Specifications and relocated the requirement to a licensee-controlled document. SR 3.8.3.6 requires the Emergency Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Storage Tank to be drained, sediment removed, and cleaned on a 10-year interval. *Date of issuance:* June 2, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 160. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-47:* The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74357). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania* . *Date of application for amendment:* June 27, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendments consist of changes to the Technical Specifications of each unit to delete the operability and surveillance requirements for the drywell air temperature and suppression chamber air temperature. These post-accident monitoring instrumentation requirements are being re-located to the Limerick Generating Station Technical Requirements Manual. *Date of issuance:* May 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 191 and 152. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85* . These amendments revised the license and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51860). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. *Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, Oswego County, New York* . *Date of application for amendment:* May 31, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated January 7, 2008. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the accident source term in the design basis radiological consequence analyses in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.67. The revised accident source term revision replaces the methodology that is based on Technical Information Document (TID)-14844, “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,” with the alternate source term methodology described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,” with the exception that TID-14844 will continue to be used as the radiation dose basis for equipment qualification and vital area access. *Date of issuance:* May 29, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 120 days. *Amendment No.:* 125. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69:* Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41786). The supplement dated January 7, 2008, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2008. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances) During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a **Federal Register** notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments. In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved. The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)the application for amendment,

(2)the amendment to Facility Operating License, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 1 Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. 1 To the extent that the applications contain attachments and supporting documents that are not publicly available because they are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information, petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a protective order. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the applications. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns/issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the applications. 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect. 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 in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five

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

(301)415-1677, to request

(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

(800)397-4209 or locally,

(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 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 submission. *Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia* . *Date of application for amendments:* April 14, 2008, as supplemented on May 6, 2008. *Brief Description of amendments:* The proposed amendment allowed a one-cycle revision to Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS 6.4.Q, “Steam Generator

(SG)Program,” and TS 6.6.3, “Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,” were revised to incorporate an interim alternate repair criterion

(IARC)into the provisions for SG tube repair. *Date of issuance:* May 16, 2008. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 258. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:* Amendment changed the license and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: 73 FR 22443 (April 25, 2008) and *Daily Press* (May 12 and May 13, 2008). No comments have been received. The supplement dated May 6, 2008 requested approval of the amendment based on exigent circumstances, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the original proposed no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed NSHC determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated May 16, 2008. The *Daily Press* notice provided an opportunity to submit comments by May 15, 2008. No comments have been received. The April 25, 2008 notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing by June 24, 2008, but the *Daily Press* Notice stated that “an opportunity for a hearing will be published at a later date.” The *Daily Press* Notice should have stated that “an opportunity for a hearing was previously published.” *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2008. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert A. Nelson, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-13218 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of New Reactors; Notice of Availability of the Final Interim Staff Guidance DC/COL-ISG-03 on Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information To Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The NRC is issuing its Final Interim Staff Guidance

(ISG)DC/COL-ISG-03 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081430087). This ISG supplements the guidance provided to the staff in section 19.0, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” concerning the review of probabilistic risk assessment

(PRA)information and severe accident assessment submitted to support design certification

(DC)and combined license

(COL)applications. The NRC staff issues DC/COL-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation of the current staff guidance and to facilitate activities associated with review of applications for DC and COLs by the Office of New Reactors. The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved DC/COL-ISGs into the next revision to the review guidance documents for new reactor applications. *Disposition:* On February 12, 2008, the staff issued the proposed ISG “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications,” (COL/DC-ISG-003) (ADAMS Accession No. ML080370218) to solicit public and industry comment. The staff received comments (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML080810201, ML080810204 and ML080840432) on the proposed guidance on March 21, 2008. These comments were further discussed in a public meeting held at the NRC on May 8, 2008. This final issuance incorporates changes from the majority of the comments. To the extent that comments are not incorporated in this final issuance, the comments are rejected by the staff or are outside the scope of this guidance. ADDRESSES: The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *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 Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynn A. Mrowca, Chief, PRA Licensing, Operations Support Maintenance Branch 1, Division of Safety Systems and Risk Assessment, Office of the New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-0525 or e-mail at *lynn.mrowca@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agency posts its issued staff guidance in the agency external Web page *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, George M. Tartal, Acting Chief, Rulemaking, Guidance and Advanced Reactor Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. E8-13572 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice DATES: Weeks of June 16, 23, 30, July 4, 14, 21, 2008. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and Closed. Week of June 16, 2008 Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. U.S. DOE (HLW Repository: Pre-Application Matters), Docket No. PAPO-00—The State of Nevada's Notice of Appeal from the PAPO Board's 1/4/08 and 12/12/07 Orders and The State of Nevada's Motion to File a Limited Reply (Tentative). b. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station); Citizens' Motion to Stay proceedings (Tentative). c. U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository: Pre-Application Matters, Advisory PAPO Board), Advisory PAPO Board Request for Additional Authority (Tentative). Week of June 23, 2008—Tentative Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1 p.m. Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301-415-1322). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov* . Week of June 30, 2008—Tentative Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9 a.m. Hearing: Diablo Canyon, 10 CFR part 2, Subpart K Proceeding, Oral Arguments (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Cordes, 301-415-1600). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov* . Week of July 7, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2008. Week of July 14, 2008—Tentative Thursday, July 17, 2008 1 p.m. Briefing on Fire Protection Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Alex Klein, 301-415-2822). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov* . Week of July 21, 2008—Tentative Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 3). Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 3). *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,

(301)415-1662. Additional Information The “Discussion of Adjudicatory Issues (Closed—Ex. 10)” previously scheduled on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, at 1 p.m. has been cancelled. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html* . The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *REB3@nrc.gov* . Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov* . Dated: June 12, 2008. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1365 Filed 6-13-08; 10:47 am]

Connectionstraces to 82

Traces to 82 documents