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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-06-25 · Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice of funding opportunity

129,770 words·~590 min read·/register/2008/06/25/08-1388

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

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P 73 123 Wednesday, June 25, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2008-0018] Notice of Funding Opportunity With the Food Safety and Inspection Service for Food Safety and Defense Training for Spanish-Speaking Plant Owners and Operators AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of funding opportunity. SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)is soliciting applications for one or more cooperative agreements for a collaborative outreach program on food safety and defense. The program will target Spanish-speaking owners and operators of small and very small establishments producing meat and poultry products. The goal is to increase knowledge of and compliance with FSIS requirements regarding meat and poultry products sold in the U.S. by this segment of the regulated industry. FSIS will allocate between $50,000 and $100,000 to one or more cooperative agreements this fiscal year 2008, with agreements being renewable for up to five years. DATES: Applications must be received by August 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mildred Rivera-Betancourt, Training Operations Branch, telephone (515)727-8987; facsimile (515)727-8992; e-mail *mildred.rivera-betancourt@fsis.usda.gov.* Application materials can be downloaded from the Government grants Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* Click on “Find Grant Opportunities,” then select “Basic Search;” type in “10.479” in the Search by Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number field and select “Search”; click on “Food Safety Cooperation Agreements” and select “Application” to access the application for this announcement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background FSIS relies on partner agencies, organizations and institutions to help it in many aspects of its public health mission. These partners share FSIS's public health and food safety goals and through their activities make important contributions to national food safety and food defense. On occasion, FSIS supports such partnerships with state or local agencies, educational institutions or other non-profit organizations by funding projects to address specific areas of mutual concern. This is done under FSIS's authority to enter into cooperative agreements for educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the nation's food supply (Pub. L. 108-7, sec. 713, 117 Stat. 39). Cooperative agreements are federal grants where the granting Federal agency is substantially involved with the cooperator that receives the funding during both project development and project execution. The nature and the number of cooperative projects funded each year are determined by the Agency's current priorities, the availability of discretionary funds, the number of proposals received, and the Agency's assessment of how well proposals will address its stated priority goals and objectives. Outreach is an essential component of FSIS's regulatory program. Improving outreach is one of FSIS's six priorities in its Strategic Plan for 2008 to 2013. The Web site for the Strategic Plan is: *http://search.usda.gov/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&site=FSIS&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=FSIS&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&q=Strategic+Plan.* Outreach is essential because the agency's implementation of its Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulation requires that regulated establishments develop and implement their own controls to ensure production of safe products. It is a public health imperative that all producers of meat, poultry and egg products for American consumers employ effective systems for food safety and food defense. Program Description FSIS wants to improve its outreach to underserved and non-English speaking persons engaged in meat and poultry processing. The initial focus is on Spanish-speaking operators of small plants (fewer than 500 employees) and very small plants (fewer than 10 employees, or less than $2.5 million in sales.) Operators of small and very small plants generally have fewer technical and financial resources by which to ensure compliance with Federal inspection requirements than do large plants. This disadvantage is exacerbated if English is not the predominant language spoken because difficulties may arise in understanding and complying with applicable inspection laws and guidance generally available only in English. In addition to U.S. plants affected, the ability of plant operators in countries exporting to the U.S. to meet equivalency requirements directly relates to their ability to understand our requirements and establish systems that are as effective as our own. Therefore, FSIS intends to fund one or more cooperative projects to provide training and education to Spanish-speaking owners and operators of establishments producing meat and poultry products subject to FSIS's regulations. This includes establishments in the U.S., including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and establishments in other countries producing imports to the U.S. in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America. The goal is for those trained to be able to enhance their own food safety programs, better demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations, and communicate more effectively with FSIS and other Agencies regarding the production and export of their meat, poultry, and egg products. The cooperator that receives the funding will design, develop, and deliver training for Spanish-speaking operators of meat and poultry facilities that addresses the effective use of HACCP systems, appropriate responses to emerging food safety and food defense concerns, understanding of the latest information on foodborne illness and hazards, and the availability of new procedures and technologies for hazard avoidance and mitigation. HACCP training should encompass products entering plants as well as products produced. Training will address U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products regulations, policies, and procedures. It will also provide guidance on how small and very small plant owners and operators can manage their operations to better ensure compliance with applicable FSIS regulations. The training program will be designed to reach a large proportion of the targeted operators, directly or indirectly. Training will be delivered through workshops and other kinds of group instruction but will also be delivered through alternative methods such as electronic self-teaching materials and distance learning programs. Materials developed will have educational value independent of the cooperative project and will be made available by FSIS or the cooperator for reproduction and public use. Available Funding Fiscal year 2008 funding will total between $50,000 and $100,000. Project Period Projects are funded for a period of up to one year from the project starting date. Awarded cooperative agreement(s) may be renewed yearly for up to four additional years. Eligible Applicants Educational institutions, state, local and tribal government agencies, and other non-profit organizations with demonstrable capabilities to provide outreach and education to Spanish-speaking owners and operators of meat and poultry establishments are invited to submit applications. Content and Form of Application *1. Application for Federal Assistance,* OMB Standard Form 424. Please complete this form in its entirety. The original copy of the application must contain a pen-and-ink signature of the authorized organizational representative—an individual with the authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. The CFDA (block 10) is “10.479—Food Safety Cooperative Agreements.” The Web site for OMB Standard Form 424 is: *http://www.grants.gov/agencies/aforms_repository_information.jsp.* *2. Project Description.* The description should provide reviewers sufficient information to effectively evaluate the merits of the application under the review criteria listed below. It should include a statement of the objectives; the steps necessary to implement the objectives of the outreach program; an evaluation plan for the activities; a program delivery plan; and a statement of work describing how the activities will be implemented and managed by the applicant. It should be no longer than eight pages. The statement of work should be in a table format that identifies each objective, the key tasks to achieve it, the entity responsible for the task, the completion date, the task location, and FSIS' role. *3. Budget.* Applicants must complete OMB Standard Form 424-A, “Budget Information, Non-Construction Program”, and a budget narrative itemizing costs for each line item on the SF-424-A. The Web site for OMB Standard Form 424-A is: *http://www.grants.gov/agencies/aforms_repository_information.jsp.* *4. Key Personnel and Collaborative Arrangements.* Applicants should provide information on the roles and responsibilities of each person working on the project, specifying the project leader and including collaborators from other organizations. Address to Submit Applications Applications may be submitted through *http://www.grants.gov* , or directly to FSIS, electronically or by mail. Applications sent directly should be e-mailed to *mildred.rivera-betancourt@fsis.usda.gov* , or mailed to Mildred Rivera-Betancourt, U.S Department of Agriculture, FSIS, OEET/CFL/TOB, 210 Walnut Street, Room 985, Des Moines, IA 50320. All applications must be submitted by the deadline. Applications meet the deadline if they are received in the mailroom at the above address on or before the date applications are due. Date Applications Are Due Applications are due August 11, 2008. Acknowledgment of Applications FSIS will acknowledge receipt of applications by e-mail. If receipt of application is not acknowledged by FSIS within 15 days of the submission deadline, the applicant should contact Mildred Rivera-Betancourt at
(515)727-8987, e-mail: *mildred.rivera-betancourt@fsis.usda.gov* , or Ralph Stafko at
(202)690-6592, e-mail: *ralph.stafko@fsis.usda.gov* . Application Review Process Applications will be reviewed on their merits by a panel of at least three reviewers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agencies or disinterested organizations as needed. The panel will examine and score applications based on each of the five criteria listed below. Reviewers will assign a point value up to the maximum for each criterion. After all reviewers have evaluated and scored each of the applications, the scores for the entire panel will be averaged to determine a final score for the application. After assigning points for each criterion, applications will be listed in order of their final score and presented, along with funding level recommendations, to the FSIS Assistant Administrator for Outreach, Employee Education and Training, who will make the final decision on awarding of the cooperative agreement(s). Decisions may be tentative, pending additional information subject to negotiation between FSIS and the applicant. FSIS will review and critique applications, and select those to be made cooperative projects, by September 23, 2008. Evaluation Criteria and Weights Proposals for funding will be reviewed and ranked in accord with the following factors: • *Project Design.* The project description demonstrates understanding of the needs of Spanish-speaking operators of small and very small meat and poultry plants. It shows how the project will assist small and very small plants to maintain effective HACCP systems, produce safe products, and otherwise comply with federal regulations. The project provides for effective outreach, including development of work products that can be used to expand coverage through independent use of materials subsequent to the cooperative agreement. The project includes well-constructed plans for assessing needs, targeting those needs, and measuring the program's effectiveness. Maximum 40 points. • *Delivery Plan.* The plan specifies applicant's responsibilities for each part of the program delivery. The plan demonstrates ability to identify specific tasks required and time lines to accomplish them. Higher scores will be given to the extent tasks are specific, measurable, and reasonable, have specific periods for completion, relate to required activities, and reflect program objectives. Maximum 20 points. • *Project Management.* The applicant demonstrates an ability to implement sound and effective project management. Organizational skills, leadership, and experience in delivering services or programs are indicative of ability to execute project plans. Maximum 20 points. • *Investment in Project.* The cooperator agrees to contribute significant resources to the project. Maximum 10 points. • *Collaborative Partnering.* The plan reflects intent to work collaboratively with other partners, and demonstrated experience and capacity to partner with other agencies, organizations or institutions, to enhance the effectiveness of the program. Maximum 10 points. Award Administration *Notification of Award.* FSIS will notify project leaders whose applications have been selected for funding. The FSIS awarding official will enter into cooperative agreements with applicants whose applications have been judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this announcement. Cooperative agreements will provide the amount of Federal funds for use in the project period, the terms and conditions of the award, and the time-period for the project. The effective date of the award is the date the agreement is executed by both parties. All funds provided must be expended solely for the purposes for which they are obligated under the approved agreement and budget, the regulations, and applicable Federal cost principles. Awarded agreements are subject to applicable Federal regulations and OMB circulars. No commitment of Federal assistance beyond the project period is made or implied for any award resulting from this notice. Applicants that are not funded will be notified within 120 days after the submission deadline. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2008_Notices_Index/.* FSIS will also make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is also available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/.* Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and they have the option to password protect their accounts. Done at Washington, DC, on: June 19, 2008. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-14287 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-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:* Economic Development Administration (EDA). *Title:* Compliance with Government Performance and Results Act. *OMB Approval Number:* 0610-0098. *Form Number(s):* ED-915, ED-916, ED-917, and ED-918. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 11,131. *Number of Respondents:* 1,530. *Average Hours Per Response:* 7 hours and 20 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* EDA must comply with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 which requires Federal agencies to develop performance measures, and report to Congress and stakeholders the results of the agency's performance. EDA needs to collect specific data from grant recipients to report on its performance in meeting its stated goals and objectives. *Affected Public:* State, local, or tribal government; not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations. *Frequency:* Annually. *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 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14281 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-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:* Economic Development Administration (EDA). *Title:* Award for Excellence in Economic Development. *OMB Control Number:* 0610-0101. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 300. *Number of Respondents:* 100. *Average Hours Per Response:* 3. *Needs and Uses:* EDA provides a broad range of economic development assistance to help distressed communities design and implement effective economic development strategies. A part of this assistance includes disseminating information about best practices and encouraging collegial learning among economic development practitioners. EDA has created the Award for Excellence in Economic Development to recognize outstanding economic development activities of national importance. *Affected Public:* State, local or tribal government; and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *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 19, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14282 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-34-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1564] Approval for Manufacturing Authority, Imperium Renewables, Inc., (Biodiesel), Aberdeen and Hoquiam, WA Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: WHEREAS, the Port of Grays Harbor, grantee of FTZ 173, has requested manufacturing authority on behalf of Imperium Renewables, Inc. (IRI), within FTZ 173 in Aberdeen and Hoquiam, Washington (FTZ Docket 13-2007, filed 4/4/2007); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 18203, 4/11/2007); WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if subject to the restriction listed below; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby grants authority for manufacturing authority within FTZ 173 on behalf of IRI, as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and further limited to an initial time period for approval, until March 31, 2013, subject to extension upon review. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12 th day of June 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14418 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1562 Approval of Manufacturing Authority, Within Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Spartanburg County, SC, Kittel Supplier USA, Inc., (Automotive Door Trim Components) Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: WHEREAS, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, has requested authority under Section 400.28 (a)(2) of the Board's regulations on behalf of Kittel Supplier USA, Inc., to assemble automotive door trim components under FTZ procedures within FTZ 38 Site 3, Duncan, South Carolina (FTZ Docket 32-2007, filed 8-3-2007); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 45219, 8-13-2007); WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby grants authority for the assembly of automotive door trim components within FTZ 38 for Kittel Supplier USA, Inc., as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12 th day of June 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14389 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1565 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 155, Calhoun and Victoria Counties, Texas, Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June, 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: WHEREAS, the Calhoun-Victoria FTZ, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 155, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand its zone to include an additional site located at the Markham salt dome caverns in Markham, Texas (Site 7 - 11 acres), adjacent to the Port Lavaca-Point Comfort Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 50-2007, filed 12/14/07); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 73314, 12/27/07), and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 155 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18 th day of June 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14419 Filed 6-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1563 Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Sony Electronics Inc., (Audio, Video, Communications and Information Technology Products and Accessories), Romeoville, Illinois Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: WHEREAS, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ”...the establishment... of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; WHEREAS, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; WHEREAS, the Illinois International Port District, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 22, has made application to the Board for authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the warehouse, distribution and kitting facility of Sony Electronics Inc., located in Romeoville, Illinois (FTZ Docket 49-2007, filed 12/4/07); WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 70819-70820, 12/13/07); and, WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to audio, video, communications and information-technology products and accessories warehousing, distribution and kitting at the facility of Sony Electronics Inc., located in Romeoville, Illinois (Subzone 22P), as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12 th day of June 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14391 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order Pursuant to Second Five-Year (Sunset) Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determination by the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the existing antidumping duty (“AD”) order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is publishing this notice of revocation of the AD order. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:* 202-482-4295 and 202-482-1904, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 17, 1997, the Department published the AD order on brake rotors from the PRC. 1 On July 2, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the AD duty order on brake rotors from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 72 FR 35968 (July 2, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the AD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the margins likely to prevail were the order revoked. *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order,* 73 FR 1319 (January 8, 2008) (“ *Brake Rotors Final* ”). 1 *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,* 62 FR 18740 (April 17, 1997). On May 29, 2008, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD order on brake rotors from the PRC would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The ITC notified the Department on June 12, 2008, and published its decision on June 18, 2008. *See Brake Rotors From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-744 (Second Review),* 73 FR 34790 (June 18, 2008) and ITC Publication 4009 Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Second Review) (June 2008). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.” Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States ( *e.g.* , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in this order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms). 2 2 In a 2007 scope ruling, the Department determined that brake rotors produced by Federal-Mogul and certified by Ford Motor Company are excluded from the scope of the order. *See* the January 17, 2007, Department memorandum entitled “Scope Ruling of the Antidumping Duty Order on Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China; Federal-Mogul Corporation,” *Notice of Scope Rulings,* 72 FR 23802 (May 1, 2007). Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheadings 8708.39.5010, 8708.39.5030, and 8708.30.5030 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). 3 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 3 As of January 1, 2005, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5010 to 8708.39.5030. As of January 1, 2007, the HTSUS classification for brake rotors (discs) changed from 8708.39.5030 to 8708.30.5030. *See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(2007)(Rev. 2),* available at *http://www.usitc.gov* . Revocation of Order As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this AD order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department is revoking the AD order on brake rotors from the PRC. Pursuant to section 751(d)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 14, 2007 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of this AD order). 4 The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 14, 2007, the effective date of revocation of the AD order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. 4 *See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China,* 67 FR 52933 (August 14, 2002). This five-year or “sunset” review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 20, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14421 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Sixth Administrative Review of Honey From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, 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) 482-3207. Background On January 28, 2008 the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period December 1, 2006-November 30, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008) (“ *Initiation* ”). On June 10, 2007 the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (the “Petitioners”) withdrew their request for an administrative review for the following twenty-one companies: Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd., Chengdu Stone Dynasty Art Stone, Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., Golden Tadco Int'l, Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Hanseatische Nahrungsmittel Fabrik R Import-Export GMBH, Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping, Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., OEI International Inc., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. and Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd. The Petitioners were the only party to request a review of the entries of subject merchandise exported by these companies. Partial Rescission Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within ninety days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On April 22, 2008 the Department extended the deadline for withdrawal of request for review. The current deadline is thirty days after the receipt of the last response to the Department's initial antidumping duty questionnaire. The last questionnaire response was received on June 2, 2008; thus, the deadline for withdrawal of request for review is July 1, 2008. Because the Petitioners' withdrawal of requests for review was timely and no other party requested a review of the aforementioned companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd., Chengdu Stone Dynasty Art Stone, Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd., Golden Tadco Int'l, Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd., Hanseatische Nahrungsmittel Fabrik R Import-Export GMBH, Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping, Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp., OEI International Inc., Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd., QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd., Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co., Ltd., Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd., Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd., Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd., Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd., Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. and Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd. Assessment Rates The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review has been rescinded and which have a separate rate, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs 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. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14409 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 08-00003] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review to AGLA Trade Link International (Application No. 08-00003). SUMMARY: On June 18, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to AGLA Trade Link International (“ATLI”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number), or by e-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR section 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR section 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. *Description of Certified Conduct:* ATLI is certified to engage in the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation described below in the following Export Trade and Export Markets. I. Export Trade 1. *Products:* All Products. 2. *Services:* All Services. 3. *Technology Rights:* Technology rights that relate to Products and Services, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. 4. *Export Trade Facilitation Services (as they Relate to the Export of Products, Services, and Technology Rights):* Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations. II. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). III. Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights, and the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, ATLI, may: a. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services; b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients; c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets; d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive arrangements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets; e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights; f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers; g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets; h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and i. Enter into contracts for shipping Products to Export Markets. 2. ATLI may exchange information on a one-to-one basis with its individual Suppliers regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules in order that the availability of Products for export can be determined and effectively coordinated by ATLI with its distributors in Export Markets. V. Definition “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells Products, Services and/or Technology Rights. VI. Protection Provided by Certificate The Certificate protects ATLI and its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions. VII. Effective Period of Certificate This Certificate continues in effect from June 18, 2008, until it is relinquished, modified, or revoked as provided in the Act and the Regulations. VIII. Other Conduct Nothing in the Certificate prohibits ATLI from engaging in conduct not specified in the Certificate, but such conduct is subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws. IX. Disclaimers 1. The issuance of the Certificate of Review to ATLI by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Attorney General under the provisions of the Act does not constitute, explicitly or implicitly, an endorsement or opinion of the Secretary of Commerce or the Attorney General concerning either
(a)the viability or quality of the business plans of ATLI or
(b)the legality of such business plans of ATLI under the laws of the United States (other than as provided in the Act) or under the laws of any foreign country. 2. The application of the Certificate to conduct in Export Trade where the U.S. Government is the buyer or where the U.S. Government bears more than half the cost of the transaction is subject to the limitations set forth in Section V.(D.) of the “Guidelines for the Issuance of Export Trade Certificates of Review (Second Edition),” 50 FR 1786 (January 11, 1985). A copy of the Certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: June 19, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-14371 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-849 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitrios Kalogeropoulos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-2623. Background On January 11, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the People's Republic of China with respect to Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., covering the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). The preliminary results of this new shipper review are currently due no later than July 9, 2008. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the Department issue preliminary results of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the day on which the review was initiated. *See also* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1). The Act further provides that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department determines that this new shipper review involves complicated methodological issues and the examination of importer information. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time period for these preliminary results to 300 days, until no later than November 6, 2008. The final results continue to be due 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-14407 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI32 Marine Mammals; File Nos. 1127-1921 and 10018 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Hawaii Marine Mammal Consortium, P.O. Box 6107, Kamuela, HI 96743 [File No. 1127-1921] and Dr. Rachel Cartwright, 5277 West Wooley Rd., Oxnard, CA 93035 [File No. 10018] have each been issued a permit to conduct scientific research on several species of cetaceans found in Hawaiian waters. ADDRESSES: These permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Belmas or Carrie Hubard, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 37731) that a request for a scientific research permit to take 24 species of cetaceans in Hawaiian waters, including the following endangered species: blue whale ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), fin whale ( *B. physalus* ), humpback whale ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), sei whale ( *B. borealis* ), and sperm whale ( *Physeter macrocephalus* ), had been submitted by the Hawaii Marine Mammal Consortium. In addition, on August 6, 2007, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 43626) that a request for a scientific research permit to take humpback whales in Hawaiian waters, had been submitted by Dr. Cartwright. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Permit No. 1127-1921 authorizes a total of 6390 annual takes, of the species listed above, by means of close approach via vessel for photo-identification, behavioral observation, acoustic recording, underwater photography and video, photogrammetry, collection of sloughed skin and fecal samples, and incidental harassment. Up to 860 takes, of the total authorized, are allocated for biopsy sampling. With the exception of humpback whales, all age/sex classes, except calves less than one year and associated mothers, may be biopsy sampled. No humpback whale calves less than 6 months of age would be biopsy sampled. The objectives of this research are to study the status, numbers, distribution, and life histories of several cetacean species found in Hawaiian waters. Permit No. 10018 authorizes up to 540 annual takes of humpback whales (420 juveniles/adults; 120 calves) by means of close approach via vessel for photo-identification, focal follows, underwater observations, collection of sloughed skin, and incidental harassment. Incidental harassment of bottlenose dolphins ( *Tursiops truncatus* ), spinner dolphins ( *Stenella longirostris* ), pantropical spotted dolphins ( *Stenella attenuata* ), false killer whales ( *Pseudorca crassidens* ), and short-finned pilot whales ( *Globicephala macrorhynchus* ) is also authorized. The purpose of this research is to test the hypotheses that behavior, dynamics, and distribution of female/calf pairs varies between different stocks and may be influenced by abiotic factors such as aspects of bathymetry, water quality, and levels of vessel traffic. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Issuance of these permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits:
(1)were applied for in good faith;
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: June 19, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-14415 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI60 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Oversight Committee will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: *Meeting address* : The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Route 1, Peabody, MA 01960. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items of discussion in the committee's agenda are as follows: 1. The Groundfish Oversight Committee will continue to develop Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 16 will adjust management measures as necessary to continue rebuilding of overfished groundfish stocks. The Committee will discuss measures for both the commercial and recreational components of the fishery at this meeting. The Committee will address questions raised by the Council concerning Committee proposals to develop specific allocations of six groundfish stocks to the recreational and commercial components of the fishery. The Committee will also discuss the implications of a recent Council proposal for managing Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs)on these allocations. Other recreational issues that may be addressed include rationale for basing the allocation on different time periods, monitoring of recreational ACLs, and Accountability Measures
(AMs)for the recreational fishery. The Committee will discuss several issues related to the commercial component of the fishery. These include monitoring requirements and a review of accountability measures for the commercial fishery. The Committee may also further discuss an effort control option raised at the June 2, 2008 Committee meeting an option that is based on a twenty-four hour clock and trip limits. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: June 19, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-14280 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD76 Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seismic Surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Shell Offshore, Inc.
(SOI)and its contractor WesternGeco for an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting marine geophysical programs, including deep seismic surveys, on oil and gas lease blocks located on Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)waters in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SOI and WesternGeco to incidentally take, by Level B harassment, small numbers of several species of marine mammals during the Arctic Ocean open-water seasons between August 1, 2008 and July 31, 2009, incidental to conducting these seismic surveys. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the application should be addressed to Mr. 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, or by telephoning the contact listed here. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.XD76@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 this address or by telephoning the contact listed here and are also available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha* . A copy of the Minerals Management Service
(MMS)Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (Final PEA) and the NMFS/MMS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) are available at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . Documents cited in this document that are not available through standard public library access methods, may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, or Brad Smith, NMFS, Alaska Regional Office 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 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. An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and 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 October 16, 2007, NMFS received an application from SOI for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey program during the open water season between August 1, 2008 and July 31, 2009 (referred to in this document as 2008/2009). SOI is planning a variety of programs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during the 2008/2009 open water seasons, including a:
(1)Chukchi Sea deep 3-D seismic survey;
(2)Beaufort Sea deep 3-D seismic survey; and
(3)Beaufort Sea marine surveys, which includes three activities:
(a)site clearance and shallow hazards surveys;
(b)an ice-gouge survey; and
(c)a strudel scour survey. The deep seismic survey components of the program will be conducted from WesternGeco's vessel, *M/V Gilavar* . Detailed specifications on this seismic survey vessel are provided in Attachment A of SOI's IHA application. These specifications include:
(1)complete descriptions of the number and lengths of the streamers which form the hydrophone arrays;
(2)airgun size and sound propagation properties; and
(3)additional detailed data on the *M/V Gilavar* 's characteristics. In summary, the *M/V Gilavar* will tow two source arrays, comprising three identical subarrays each, which will be fired alternately as the ship progresses downline in the survey area. The *M/V Gilavar* will tow up to 6 streamer cables up to 5.4 kilometers (km)(3.4 mi) long. With this configuration each pass of the *M/V Gilavar* can record 12 subsurface lines spanning a swath of up to 360 meters (1181 ft). The seismic acquisition vessel will be supported by the *M/V Gulf Provider* , or a similar vessel. The *M/V Gulf Provider* will serve as a crew change, resupply, fueling support of acoustic and marine mammal monitoring, and seismic chase vessel. It will not deploy seismic acquisition gear. As SOI's 2007 IHA for open water seismic activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas is valid until August 1, 2008, this IHA request is intended, therefore, for the open water seasons between August 2, 2008 through July 31, 2009. As marine mammals may be affected by seismic and vessel noise, SOI has requested an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to take marine mammals by Level B harassment while conducting seismic surveys and related activities. Plan for Seismic Operations In its application, SOI notes that it plans for the *M/V Gilavar* to be in the Chukchi Sea to begin seismic acquisition data on or after July 20, 2008, move to the Beaufort Sea in mid-July through late October, and conclude work in the Chukchi Sea around November 15, 2008. For purposes of the MMPA, the Chukchi and Beaufort seas meet the definition of a “specific geographic region” as defined under the Act. As proposed, the 2008 seismic survey effort will last a maximum of 100 days of active data acquisition (excluding downtime due to weather and other unforeseen delays). When ice conditions permit or when SOI determines to do so (at present, SOI plans to work in the Chukchi Sea until around September 25), the seismic and associated vessels will transit to the Beaufort Sea to conduct seismic operation for part of the this 100-day period. The proposed commencement date of July 20th for starting seismic in the Chukchi Sea is designed to ensure that there will be no conflict with the spring bowhead whale migration and subsistence hunts conducted by Barrow, Pt. Hope, or Wainwright or the beluga subsistence hunt conducted by the village of Pt. Lay in early July. The approximate area of SOI's seismic survey operations are shown in Figure 1 in SOI's IHA application. 3-D Deep Seismic Surveys Chukchi Sea 3-D Deep Seismic Surveys SOI and its geophysical (seismic) contractor, WesternGeco, propose to conduct a marine geophysical (deep 3-D seismic) survey program during open water season on various MMS Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)lease blocks in the northern Chukchi Sea (see Figure 1 in SOI's IHA application). The Chukchi Sea 3-D Deep Seismic survey will be conducted on leases obtained under Lease Sale
(LS)193. The exact locations where operations will occur within that sale area were not known at the time of SOI's IHA application, but NMFS presumes they will take place on lease blocks obtained as a result of the sale. However, in general SOI notes that the seismic data acquisition will occur at least 25 mi (40 km) offshore of the coast and in waters with depths averaging about 40 m (131 ft). The deep 3-D seismic survey is proposed to be conducted from WesternGeco's vessel *M/V Gilavar* , described previously. Two “chase boats” will accompany the seismic vessel. These two chase boats will provide the following functions:
(1)re-supply,
(2)marine mammal monitoring,
(3)ice scouting, and
(4)general support for the *M/V Gilavar* . The chase boat vessels proposed for use in 2008 are the *M/V Theresa Marie* and the *M/V Torsvik* . These vessels will not deploy any seismic gear. In addition, a crew change vessel, the *M/V Gulf Provider* or similar vessel and a landing craft, such as the *M/V Maxime* or similar vessel, will support the *M/V Gilavar* , and the two chase boats in the Chukchi Sea. The crew change vessel will be used to move personnel and supplies from the seismic vessel, and two chase boats to the nearshore areas. In turn, the landing craft will move personnel and supplies from the crew change vessel, when it is located in nearshore areas, to the beach (most likely this will be at Barrow). Lastly, the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Program
(4MP)will have a separate vessel for the proposed 2008 Program. The landing craft also will be used to move personnel and equipment from the 4MP vessel to the near shore areas. Beaufort Sea Deep 3-D Seismic Surveys The same seismic vessel ( *M/V Gilavar* ), seismic equipment, and chase boats that are described for the Chukchi Sea Deep 3-D Seismic survey, will be used to conduct deep 3-D seismic surveys in the central and eastern Beaufort Sea (see Figure 2 in SOI's IHA application). The focus of this activity will be on SOI's existing leases, but some activity in the Beaufort Sea may occur outside of SOI's existing leases. The landing craft, which will be used to move personnel and supplies from vessels in the near shore to docking sites will most likely use West Dock, or Oliktok Dock. Smaller vessels such as the Alaska Clean Seas
(ACS)bay boats, or similar vessels, may be used to assist in the movement of people and supplies and support of the 4MP in the Beaufort Sea. The specific geographic region for SOI's deep seismic program in the Beaufort Sea will be in OCS waters including SOI leases beginning east of the Colville River delta to west of the village of Kaktovik (see Figure 2 in SOI's application). According to SOI's IHA application, the Beaufort Sea program is planned to occur for a maximum of 60 days (excluding downtime due to weather and unforeseen delays) during open-water from mid-August to the end of October; however, recent communications with SOI indicates that the Beaufort Sea seismic program will not start until after September 25, 2008. This timing of activities in the fall will avoid any significant conflict with the Beaufort Sea bowhead whale subsistence hunt conducted by the Beaufort Sea villages, because it is anticipated that the fall bowhead whale hunt will have ended by that time. Description of Marine 3-D Seismic Data Acquisition In the seismic method, reflected sound energy produces graphic images of seafloor and sub-seafloor features. The seismic system consists of sources and detectors, the positions of which must be accurately measured at all times. The sound signal comes from arrays of towed energy sources. These energy sources store compressed air which is released on command from the towing vessel. The released air forms a bubble which expands and contracts in a predictable fashion, emitting sound waves as it does so. Individual sources are configured into arrays. These arrays have an output signal, which is more desirable than that of a single bubble, and also serve to focus the sound output primarily in the downward direction, which is useful for the seismic method. This array effect also minimizes the sound emitted in the horizontal direction. The downward propagating sound travels to the seafloor and into the geologic strata below the seafloor. Changes in the acoustic properties between the various rock layers result in a portion of the sound being reflected back toward the surface at each layer. This reflected energy is received by detectors called hydrophones, which are housed within submerged streamer cables which are towed behind the seismic vessel. Data from these hydrophones are recorded to produce seismic records or profiles. Seismic profiles often resemble geologic cross- sections along the course traveled by the survey vessel. Description of WesternGeco's Air-Gun Array SOI is proposing to use WesternGeco's 3147-in 3 Bolt-Gun Array for its 3-D seismic survey operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. WesternGeco's source arrays are composed of 3 identically tuned Bolt-gun sub-arrays operating at an air pressure of 2,000 psi. In general, the signature produced by an array composed of multiple sub-arrays has the same shape as that produced by a single sub-array while the overall acoustic output of the array is determined by the number of sub-arrays employed. The airgun arrangement for each of the three 1049-in 3 sub-array is detailed in SOI's application. As indicated in the application's diagram, each sub-array is composed of six tuning elements; two 2-airgun clusters and four single airguns. The standard configuration of a source array for 3-D surveys consists of one or more 1049-in 3 sub-arrays. When more than one sub-array is used, as here, the strings are lined up parallel to each other with either 8 m or 10 m (26 or 33 ft) cross-line separation between them. This separation was chosen so as to minimize the areal dimensions of the array in order to approximate point source radiation characteristics for frequencies in the nominal seismic processing band. For the 3147-in 3 array the overall dimensions of the array are 15 m (49 ft) long by 16-m (52.5-ft) wide. Characteristics of Airgun Pulses A discussion of the characteristics of airgun pulses was provided in several previous **Federal Register** documents (see 69 FR 31792 (June 7, 2004) or 69 FR 34996 (June 23, 2004)) and is not repeated here. Additional information can be found in the NMFS/MMS Draft PEIS (see ADDRESSES ). Reviewers are encouraged to read these earlier documents for additional background information. Marine Surveys SOI proposes to conduct marine surveys (shallow hazards and other activities) in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2008. Acoustic systems similar to the ones proposed for use by SOI during its planned marine surveys have been described by NMFS previously (see 66 FR 40996 (August 6, 2001), 70 FR 13466 (March 21, 2005)). NMFS encourages readers to refer to these documents for additional information on these systems. A summary of SOI's planned activities is described next. Beaufort Sea Marine Surveys SOI proposes to conduct three marine survey activities in 2008 in the U.S. Beaufort Sea:
(1)Site Clearance and Shallow Hazards
(2)Ice Gouge Surveys, and
(3)Strudel Scour Surveys. Marine surveys for site clearance and shallow hazards, ice gouge, or strudel scour in the Beaufort Sea can be accomplished by the *M/V Henry Christofferson* . No other vessels, such as chase boats, are necessary to accomplish the proposed marine survey work. Any necessary crew changes or 4MP coordinated activities under this activity will utilize the same crew change, landing craft, or 4MP vessel mentioned under the Beaufort Sea Deep 3-D Seismic survey. Site Clearance and Shallow Hazards Marine surveys will include site clearance and shallow hazards surveys of potential exploratory drilling locations. These surveys gather data on:
(1)bathymetry,
(2)seabed topography and other seabed characteristics (e.g., boulder patches),
(3)potential geohazards (e.g., shallow faults and shallow gas zones), and
(4)the presence of any archeological features (e.g., shipwrecks). The focus of this activity will be on SOI's existing leases in the central and eastern Beaufort Sea, but some activity may occur outside of SOI's existing leases. Actual locations of site clearance and shallow hazard surveys have not been definitively set as of the date of this publication, although they will occur within the area outlined in Figure 2 of SOI's IHA application. The vessel that SOI expects to use for the site clearance and shallow hazards surveys is the *M/V Henry Christofferson* , which is a diesel-powered tug as described in Attachment A to SOI's IHA application. SOI proposes to use the following acoustic instrumentation, (or similar equipment) during this work. This is the same equipment as was used on the *M/V Henry Christofferson* during 2007:
(1)Dual frequency subbottom profiler Datasonics CAP6000 Chirp II (2 to7 kiloHertz [kHz] or 8 to 23 kHz) or similar;
(2)Medium penetration subbottom profiler, Datasonics SPR-1200 Bubble Pulser (400 (hertz [Hz]) or similar;
(3)High resolution multi-channel 2D system, 20 cubic inches (in 3 ) (2 by 10) gun array (0 to 150 Hz) or similar;
(4)Multi-beam bathymetric sonar, Seabat 8101 (240 Hz); or similar; and
(5)Side-scan sonar system, Datasonics SIS-1500 (190 to 210 kHz) or similar. Ice Gouge Survey Ice gouge surveys are a type of marine survey to determine the depth and distribution of ice gouges in the sea bed. Ice gouge is created by ice keels which project from the bottom of moving ice that gouge into seafloor sediment. Remnant ice gouge features are mapped to aid in predicting the prospect of, orientation, depth, and frequency of future ice gouge. These surveys will focus on the potential, prospective pipeline corridor between the Sivulliq Prospect in Camden Bay and the nearshore Point Thomson area. The Sivulliq area will be surveyed to gather geotechnical and seafloor hazard information as well as data on ice gouges. SOI proposes that the acoustic instrumentation described previously in this document (or something similar) will be used, namely multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar and subbottom profiling. Actual locations of the ice gouge surveys have not been definitively set as of the date of this publication, although these will occur within the area outlined in Figure 2 of SOI's IHA application. There are also some platform siting lines proposed, which would employ a high resolution multi-channel 2D system, 20 cubic inches (in 3 ) (2 by 10) airgun array (0 to 150 Hz) or similar system. Strudel Scour Survey During the early melt on the North Slope, the rivers begin to flow and discharge water over the coastal sea ice near the river deltas. That water rushes down holes in the ice (“strudels”) and scours the seafloor. These erosional areas are called “strudel scours”. Information on these features is required for prospective pipeline planning. Two proposed activities are required to gather this information. First, an aerial survey will be conducted via helicopter overflights during the melt to locate the strudels; and strudel scour marine surveys to gather bathymetric data. The overflights investigate possible sources of overflood water and will survey local streams that discharge in the vicinity of Point Thomson including the Staines River, which discharges to the east into Flaxman Lagoon and the Canning River, which discharges to the east directly into the Beaufort Sea. These helicopter overflights were scheduled to occur during late May/early June 2008 and, weather permitting, should take no more than four days. There are no planned landings during these overflights other than at the Deadhorse or Kaktovik airports. Second, areas that have strudel scour identified during the aerial survey will be verified and surveyed with a marine vessel after the breakup of nearshore ice. This proposed activity is not anticipated to take more than 5 days to conduct. The operation is conducted in the shallow water areas near the coast in the vicinity of Point Thomson. The vessel has not been contracted; however, it is anticipated that it will be the diesel-powered *R/V Annika Marie* . This vessel will use the following equipment:
(1)Multi-beam bathymetric sonar, Seabat 8101 (240 Hz); or similar sonar; and
(2)Side-scan sonar system, Datasonics SIS-1500 (190 to 210 kHz) or similar sonar. The multi-beam bathymetric sonar and the side-scan sonar systems both operate at frequencies greater than 180 kHz, the highest frequency considered by knowledgeable marine mammal biologists to be of possible influence to marine mammals. Because no taking of marine mammals will occur from this equipment, no measurements of those two sources are planned by SOI, and no exclusion zones for seals or whales would be established during operation of those two sources. The acoustic instrumentation used on the seismic vessels are described in SOI's IHA application. Chukchi Sea Marine Surveys Marine surveys will include site clearance and shallow hazards surveys of potential exploratory drilling locations as required by MMS regulations. These surveys gather data on:
(1)bathymetry,
(2)seabed topography and other seabed characteristics (e.g., boulder patches),
(3)potential geohazards (e.g., shallow faults and shallow gas zones), and
(4)the presence of any archeological features (e.g., shipwrecks). Marine surveys for site clearance and shallow hazards can be accomplished by one vessel with acoustic sources. No other vessels, such as chase boats, are necessary to accomplish the proposed work. Any necessary crew changes or 4MP coordinated activities under this activity will utilize the same crew change, landing craft, or 4MP vessel mentioned under the Chukchi Sea deep 3D seismic surveys. The Chukchi Sea marine surveys will be conducted by SOI on leases acquired in OCS LS 193. Site clearance surveys are confined to small specific areas within OCS blocks. Actual locations of site clearance and shallow hazard surveys have not been definitively set as of the date of SOI's IHA application, although these will occur within the general area outlined in Figure 1 in SOI's IHA application. Before the commencement of operations, survey location information will be supplied to NMFS, MMS, other agencies and affected members of the public as it becomes available. SOI has not contracted for a vessel at the time of publication of this document. Additional Information A detailed description of the work proposed by SOI for the open-water seasons of 2008/2009 is contained in SOI's application which is available for review (see ADDRESSES ). Also, a description of SOI's data acquisition program proposed for the 2008/2009 season, and WesternGeco's air-gun array to be employed during 2008/2009 has been provided in previous IHA notices on SOI's seismic program (see 71 FR 26055, May 3, 2006; 71 FR 50027, August 24, 2006). Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity A detailed description of the Beaufort and Chukchi sea ecosystems and their associated marine mammal populations can be found in the NMFS/MMS Draft PEIS and the MMS Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (Final PEA) on Seismic Surveys (see ADDRESSES for availability) and also in several other documents (e.g., MMS, 2007 Final EIS for Chukchi Sea Planning Area: Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea. MMS 2007-026). Marine Mammals The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including bowhead whales, gray whales, beluga whales, killer whales, harbor porpoise, ringed seals, spotted seals, bearded seals, walrus and polar bears. 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. Descriptions of the biology and distribution of the marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction can be found in SOI's IHA application, the 2007 NMFS/MMS Draft PEIS on Arctic Seismic Surveys, and the MMS 2006 Final PEA on Arctic Seismic Surveys. Information on these marine mammal species can also be found in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARS). The 2007 Alaska SARS document 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 Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by this activity. Support vessels and aircraft may provide a potential secondary source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can, in general, 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. Effects of Seismic Survey Sounds on Marine Mammals Behavioral Effects In its IHA application, SOI states that the only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with noise propagation from vessel movement and seismic airgun operations would be the temporary and short term displacement of whales and seals from within ensonified zones produced by such noise sources. Any impacts on the whale and seal populations of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas activity areas are likely to be short-term and transitory arising from the temporary displacement of individuals or small groups from locations they may occupy at the times they are exposed to seismic sounds between the 160- to 190-dB received levels. In the case of bowhead whales however, that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels lower than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). Moreover, it is not presently known at what distance after passing the seismic source that bowheads will return to their previous migration route. However, NMFS does not believe that this offshore deflection is biologically significant (although it might be significant for purposes of subsistence hunting, as discussed later) as the bowhead migration is believed to remain within the general bowhead whale migratory corridor in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, which varies annually based on environmental factors. SOI cites Richardson and Thomson [eds].
(2002)to support its contention that there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to sounds exceeding 160 dB have displaced bowheads from feeding activity. NMFS notes that, in 2006, observations conducted onboard a seismic vessel operating in the Canadian Beaufort Sea found that feeding bowhead whales were not observed to respond to seismic sounds at levels of 160 dB or lower. Results from the 1996-1998 BP and Western Geophysical seismic monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea indicate that most fall migrating bowheads deflected seaward to avoid an area within about 20 km (12.4 mi) of an active nearshore seismic operation, with the exception of a few closer sightings when there was an island or very shallow water between the seismic operations and the whales (Miller *et al.* , 1998, 1999). The available data do not provide an unequivocal estimate of the distance (and received sound levels) at which approaching bowheads begin to deflect, but this may be on the order of 35 km (21.7 mi). When the received levels of noise exceed some threshold, cetaceans will show behavioral disturbance reactions. The levels, frequencies, and types of noise that will elicit a response vary between and within species, individuals, locations, and seasons. Behavioral changes may be subtle alterations in surface, respiration, and dive cycles. More conspicuous responses include changes in activity or aerial displays, movement away from the sound source, or complete avoidance of the area. The reaction threshold and degree of response also are related to the activity of the animal at the time of the disturbance. Whales engaged in active behaviors, such as feeding, socializing, or mating, appear less likely than resting animals to show overt behavioral reactions, unless the disturbance is perceived as directly threatening. Masking Although NMFS believes that some limited masking of low-frequency sounds (e.g., whale calls) is a possibility during seismic surveys, the intermittent nature of seismic source pulses (1 second in duration every 16 to 24 seconds (i.e., less than 7 percent duty cycle)) will limit the extent of masking. Bowhead whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic survey sounds, and their calls can be heard between seismic pulses (Greene *et al.* , 1999, Richardson *et al.* , 1986). Masking effects are expected to be absent in the case of belugas, given that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds. Injury and Mortality NMFS and SOI believe that there is no evidence that bowheads or other marine mammals exposed to seismic sounds in the Arctic have incurred an injury to their auditory mechanisms. While it is not positively known whether the hearing systems of marine mammals very close to an airgun would be at risk of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, Richardson *et al.*
(1995)notes that TTS is a theoretical possibility for animals within a few hundred meters of the source. More recently, scientists have determined that the received level of a single seismic pulse might need to be ~210 dB re 1 μPa rms (~221-226 dB pk-pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is a function of the total received pulse energy. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. However, according to SOI, there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales (i.e., bowheads, gray whales and humpback whales) would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of onset of TTS. For pinnipeds, information indicates that for single seismic impulses, sounds would need to be higher than 190 dB rms for TTS to occur while exposure to several seismic pulses indicates that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations. This indicates to NMFS that the 190-dB safety zone (see Mitigation and Monitoring later in this document) provides a sufficient buffer to prevent permanent threshold shift
(PTS)in pinnipeds. A marine mammal within a radius of ≤100 m (≤328 ft) around a typical large array of operating airguns may be exposed to a few seismic pulses at received levels of ≥205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the marine mammal moved with the seismic vessel. When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. However, as scientists are reluctant to cause injury to a marine mammals, there is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. Given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Acousticians are in general agreement that a temporary shift in hearing threshold of up to 40 dB due to moderate exposure times is fully recoverable and does not involve tissue damage or cell loss. Liberman and Dodds
(1987)state, ”... acute threshold shifts as large as 60 dB are routinely seen in ears in which the surface morphology of the stereocilia is perfectly normal.” (Stereocilia are the sensory cells responsible for the sensation of hearing.). In the chinchilla, no cases of TTS involve the loss of stereocilia, but all cases of PTS do (Ahroon *et al.* , 1996). Cell death clearly qualifies as Level A harassment (injury) under the MMPA. Because there is no cell death with modest (up to 40 dB) TTS, such losses of sensitivity constitute a temporary impairment but not an injury, further supporting NMFS' precautionary approach that establishment of seismic airgun shutdown at 180 dB for cetaceans and 190 dB for pinnipeds, will prevent auditory injury to marine mammals by seismic airgun sounds. NMFS notes that planned monitoring and mitigation measures (described later in this document) have been designed to avoid sudden onsets of seismic pulses at full power, to detect marine mammals occurring near the array, and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that have any possibility of causing hearing impairment. Moreover, NMFS does not expect that any marine mammals will be seriously injured or killed during SOI's seismic survey activities, even if some animals are not detected prior to entering the 180-dB and 190-dB isopleths (safety zones) for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. These criteria were set to approximate a level below where Level A harassment (i.e., defined as “any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild”) from acoustic sources was believed to begin. Because, a decade or so ago, scientists did not have information on where PTS might occur in marine mammals, the High Energy Seismic Survey
(HESS)workshop (HESS, 1997, 1999) set the level to prevent injury to marine mammals at 180 dB. NMFS concurred and determined that TTS, which is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound, may occur at these levels (180 dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds). When a marine mammal experiences TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. Strandings In numerous past IHA notices for seismic surveys, commenters have referenced two stranding events allegedly associated with seismic activities, one off Baja California and a second off Brazil. NMFS has addressed this concern several times and without new information, does not believe that this issue warrants further discussion. For information relevant to strandings of marine mammals, readers are encouraged to review NMFS' response to comments on this matter found in 69 FR 74905 (December 14, 2004), 71 FR 43112 (July 31, 2006), 71 FR 50027 (August 24, 2006), and 71 FR 49418 (August 23, 2006). In addition, a June, 2008 stranding of 30-40 melon-headed whales ( *Peponocephala spp* ), off Madagascar that appears to be associated with seismic surveys is currently under investigation. One report indicates that the stranding began prior to seismic surveys starting. It should be noted that marine mammal strandings recorded in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas do not appear to be related to seismic surveys. Finally, if bowhead and gray whales react to sounds at very low levels by making minor course corrections to avoid seismic noise and mitigation measures require SOI to ramp-up the seismic array to avoid a startle effect, strandings are unlikely to occur in the Arctic Ocean. As a result, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will incur serious injury, mortality or strandings in the Arctic Ocean. Potential Impacts on Affected Species and Stocks of Marine Mammals According to SOI, the only anticipated impacts to marine mammals associated with SOI's seismic activities with respect to noise propagation are from vessel movements and seismic air gun operations. SOI states that these impacts would be temporary and short term displacement of seals and whales from within ensonified zones produced by such noise sources. Any impacts on the whale and seal populations of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea activity areas are likely to be short term and transitory arising from the temporary displacement of individuals or small groups from locations they may occupy at the times they are exposed to seismic sounds at the 160-190 dB (or higher) received levels. As noted elsewhere, it is highly unlikely that animals will be exposed to sounds of such intensity and duration as to physically damage their auditory mechanisms. In the case of bowhead whales that displacement might well take the form of a deflection of the swim paths of migrating bowheads away from (seaward of) received noise levels greater than 160 db (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). There is no evidence that bowheads so exposed have incurred injury to their auditory mechanisms. Also, there is no evidence that seals are more than temporarily displaced from ensonified zones and no evidence that seals have experienced physical damage to their auditory mechanisms even within ensonified zones. During the period of seismic acquisition in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, most marine mammals are expected to be dispersed throughout the area. Bowhead whales are expected to be concentrated in the Canadian Beaufort Sea during much of this time, where they are not expected to be affected by SOI's seismic program. The peak of the bowhead whale migration through the Beaufort and Chukchi seas typically occurs in late August through October, and efforts to reduce potential impacts during this time will be addressed with the actual start of the migration and through discussions with the affected whaling communities. In the Chukchi Sea, the timing of seismic activities will take place while the whales are widely distributed and would be expected to occur in very low numbers within the seismic activity area. If SOI conducts seismic surveys in late September or October in the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea, bowheads may travel in proximity to the seismic survey activity areas and hear sounds from vessel traffic and seismic activities, of which some might be displaced by the planned activities. The reduction of potential impacts during the fall bowhead whale migratory period will be addressed through discussions with the whaling communities. Starting in late August bowheads may travel in proximity to SOI's planned Beaufort Sea seismic activity areas and may hear sounds from vessel traffic and seismic activities, of which some might be displaced seaward by the planned activities. However, at the present time, SOI expects to significantly reduce its period of seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea by remaining in the Chukchi Sea until mid-September, entering the Beaufort Sea only after the fall subsistence hunt has concluded and after a significant portion of the bowhead whales would have left the Canadian Beaufort Sea on their westward migration to the Chukchi Sea. In addition, although there was apparently a period of concentrated feeding in the central Beaufort Sea in September 2007, feeding does not normally appear to be an important activity by bowheads migrating through the eastern and central part of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea or the Chukchi Sea in most years. Sightings of bowhead whales occur in the summer near Barrow (Moore and DeMaster, 2000), and there are suggestions that certain areas near Barrow are important feeding grounds. In addition, a few bowheads can be found in the Chukchi and Bering Seas during the summer and Rugh *et al.*
(2003)suggests that this may be an expansion of the western Arctic stock, although more research is needed. In the absence of important feeding areas, the potential diversion of a small number of bowheads away from seismic activities is not expected to have any significant or long-term consequences for individual bowheads or their population. Effects on Individual Arctic Ocean Marine Mammal Species In order to facilitate the reader's understanding of the knowledge of impacts of impulsive noise on the principal marine mammal species that are expected to be affected by SOI's proposed seismic survey program, NMFS has previously provided a summary of potential impacts on the bowhead, gray, and beluga whales and the ringed, largha and bearded seals. This information can be found in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 31553, June 7, 2007). Information on impacts on marine mammals by seismic activities can also be found in SOI's IHA application. Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to Be Harassed by Seismic Survey Activities The methodology used by SOI 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 Chukchi and Beaufort seas has been presented in SOI's 2008 IHA application. In its application, SOI provides estimates of the number of potential “exposures” to sound levels equal to or greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). NMFS clarifies here that, except possibly for bowhead whales, calculations of the number of exposures by SOI, does not necessarily indicate that this is the number of Level B harassments that SOI's seismic activity will take. First, exposure estimates do not take into account variability between species or within a species by activity, age or sex. What this means is that not all animals are expected to react at the same level as its conspecifics, and all species are not expected to react at the same level, as some species in the Arctic will respond to sounds differently, if at all, depending upon whether or not they have good hearing in the same frequency range as seismic. Second, NMFS believes that SOI's use of the maximum density estimates for its requested take authorization (see IHA application and references for details) is overly cautious as it tends to inflate harassment take estimates to an unreasonably high number and is not based on good empirical science. NMFS believes that these inflated numbers have been provided and used by SOI for its Level B harassment take request in an abundance of caution because they present a worst-case estimate. NMFS, on the other hand prefers to use the average density estimate numbers provided in Tables 6-1 through 6-5 in SOI's IHA application as these are the more realistic and scientifically supportable estimates. NMFS notes, for example, that the most comprehensive survey data set on ringed and bearded seals from the central and eastern Beaufort Sea was conducted on offshore pack ice in late spring. Density estimates of ringed and bearded seals were based on counts of seals on the ice during this survey, not in open water where seismic surveys are conducted. Consequently, the density and potential take (exposure) numbers for seals in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas will likely overestimate the number of seals that could be encountered and/or exposed to seismic airguns because only animals in the water near the survey area would be exposed to seismic and site clearance activity sound sources. Because seals would be more widely dispersed while in open water, NMFS presumes that animal densities would be less than when seals are concentrated on and near the ice. Compounding that error, SOI calculated the maximum density for seals as 4 times the average density, which NMFS does not believe is supported by the best available science. The estimates for marine mammal “exposure” are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that might be appreciably disturbed during approximately 7974 km (4955 mi) of full 3D seismic surveys and approximately 4294 km (2668 mi) of mitigation gun activity in the Chukchi Sea and by approximately 4784 km (2973 mi) of full 3D seismic surveys and approximately 2576 km (1600 mi) of mitigation gun (a single small airgun used when the airgun array is not active to alert marine mammals to the presence of the survey vessel) activity in the Beaufort Sea. In addition to the 3D seismic program, the shallow hazards surveys using a 2 10 in 3 airgun array will be performed along approximately 1237 km (769 mi) in the Beaufort Sea and approximately 432 km (268 mi) in the Chukchi Sea. NMFS further notes that the close spacing of neighboring tracklines within the planned 3D seismic survey areas results in a limited amount of total area of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas being exposed to sounds ≥ 160 dB while much of the survey area is exposed repeatedly. This means that the number of non-migratory cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to seismic sounds would be less than if the seismic vessel conducted straight line transects of the sea without turning and returning on a nearby, parallel track. However, these animals may be exposed several times before the seismic vessel moves to a new site. In that regard, NMFS notes that the methodology used by SOI in its “exposure” calculations is more valid for seismic surveys that transect long distances, for those surveys that “mow the lawn” (that is, remain within a relatively small area, transiting back and forth while shooting seismic). In such situations, the Level B harassment numbers tend to be highly inflated, if each “exposure” is calculated to be a different animal and not, as here, a relatively small number of animals residing in the area and being “exposed” to seismic sounds several times during the season. As a result, NMFS believes that SOI's estimated number of individual exposures does not account for multiple exposures of the same animal (principally non-migratory pinnipeds) instead of single animal exposures as the survey conducts a number of parallel transects of the same area (sometimes called bostrophodontical surveys) and the fact that the mitigation procedures would serve to reduce exposures to affected marine mammals. As mentioned previously, 3D seismic airgun arrays are composed of identically tuned Bolt-gun sub-arrays operating at 2,000 psi. In general, the signature produced by an array composed of multiple sub-arrays has the same shape as that produced by a single sub-array while the overall acoustic output of the array is determined by the number of sub-arrays employed. The gun arrangement for the 1,049 square inches
(in2)sub-array is detailed below and is comprised of three subarrays comprising a total 3,147 in2 sound source. The anticipated radii of influence of the bathymetric sonars and pinger are less than those for the air gun configurations described in Attachment A in SOI's IHA application. It is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of those additional sound sources and the air gun(s), any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the sonars or pinger would already be affected by the air gun(s). In this event, SOI believes that marine mammals are not expected to exhibit more than short-term and inconsequential responses, and such responses have not been considered to constitute “taking” therefore, potential taking estimates only include noise disturbance from the use of air guns. The specifications of the equipment, including site clearance activities, to be used and areas of ensonification are described more fully in SOI's IHA application (see Attachment B in SOI's IHA application). Cetaceans For belugas and gray whales, in both the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea, Moore *et al.* (2000b and c) offer the most current data to estimate densities during summer. Density estimates for bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea were updated by information provided by Miller *et al.* (2002). Tables 6-1 and 6-2 (Chukchi Sea) and Tables 6-3 and 6-4 (beluga and bowhead: Beaufort Sea) provide density estimates for the summer and fall, respectively. Table 6-5 provides a summary of the expected densities for cetaceans (other than bowheads and belugas) and pinnipeds during all seasons in the Beaufort Sea. The number of different individuals of each species potentially exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)within each survey region, time period, and habitat zone was estimated by multiplying the expected species density, by the anticipated area to be ensonified to the 160-dB level in the survey region, time period, and habitat zone to which that density applies. The numbers of “exposures” were then summed by SOI for each species across the survey regions, seasons, and habitat zones. Some of the animals estimated to be exposed, particularly migrating bowhead whales, might show avoidance reactions before being exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Thus, these calculations actually estimate the number of individuals potentially exposed to ≥160 dB that would occur if there were no avoidance of the area ensonified to that level. For the full-3D airgun array, the cross track distance is 2 the 160-dB radius which was measured in 2007 as 8.1 km (5.0 mi) in the Chukchi Sea and 13.4 km (8.3 mi) in the Beaufort Sea. The mitigation gun' 160-dB radius was measured at 1370 m (4495 ft) in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort seas. For shallow hazards surveys to be performed by the *Henry Christofferson* , the 160-dB radius measured in 2007 was equal to 621 m (2037 ft). Using these distances, SOI estimates that the area ensonified in the Chukchi Sea is approximately 15,000 km 2 and approximately 10,100 km 2 in the Beaufort Sea. The estimated numbers of potential marine mammal “exposures” by SOI's surveys are presented in Tables 6-6 for the summer/fall period in the Chukchi Sea, Table 6-7 for bowhead and beluga whales in the U.S. Beaufort Sea and in Table 6-8 for marine mammals (other than bowheads and belugas) in the Beaufort Sea. Table 1 in this document (Table 6-9 in the IHA application) summarizes these exposure estimates based on the 160-dB re 1 μPa
(rms)criteria for cetaceans exposed to impulse sounds (such as seismic). SOI's estimates show that the bowhead whale is the only endangered marine mammal expected to be exposed to noise levels ≥ 160 dB unless, as expected during the fall migratory period, bowheads avoid the approaching survey vessel before the received levels reach 160 dB. Migrating bowheads are likely to take avoidance measures, though many of the bowheads engaged in other activities, particularly feeding and socializing, probably will not. SOI's estimate of the number of bowhead whales potentially exposed to ≥160 dB is 1540 animals (9 in the Chukchi Sea and 1531 in the Beaufort Sea (see Table 1)). Two other endangered cetacean species that may be encountered in the northern Chukchi/western Beaufort Sea area, the fin whale and humpback whale, are estimated by SOI to have two exposures each in the Chukchi Sea. However, NMFS believes that at least for the fin whale, no animals would be so exposed given their low “average” estimates of densities in the area. Most of the cetaceans exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB would involve bowhead, gray, and beluga whales, and the harbor porpoise. Average estimates of the number of exposures of cetaceans by 3D seismic surveys (other than bowheads), in descending order, are beluga (298), gray whale (183), and harbor porpoise (58). The regional breakdown of these numbers is shown in Tables 6-6 to 6-8. Estimates for other species are lower (Table 6-9). These estimates are also provided in Table 1 in this **Federal Register** notice. Pinnipeds Ringed, spotted, and bearded seals are all associated with sea ice, and most census methods used to determine density estimates for pinnipeds are associated with counting the number of seals hauled out on ice. Correction factors have been developed for most pinniped species that address biases associated with detectability and availability of a particular species. Although extensive surveys of ringed and bearded seals have been conducted in the Beaufort Sea, the majority of the surveys have been conducted over the landfast ice and few seal surveys have been in open water. The most comprehensive survey data set on ringed seals (and bearded seal) from the central and eastern Beaufort Sea was conducted on offshore pack ice in late spring (Kingsley, 1986). It is important to note that all proposed activities will be conducted during the open-water season and density estimates used here were based on counts of seals on ice. Therefore, densities and potential take numbers will overestimate the numbers of seals that would likely be encountered and/or exposed because only the animals in the water would be exposed to the seismic and clearance activity sound sources. The ringed seal is the most widespread and abundant pinniped in ice-covered arctic waters and ringed seals are expected to account for the vast majority of marine mammals expected to be encountered, and hence exposed to airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)during SOI's seismic survey. The average estimate is that 13,256 ringed seals might be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB. Two additional pinniped species (other than the Pacific walrus) are expected to be encountered. They are the bearded seal (592 exposures), and the spotted seal (422 exposures)(see Table 1 in this document or Table 6-9 in the IHA application). The spotted seal and ribbon seal are unlikely to be encountered during SOI's seismic surveys. TABLE 1.Summary of the Number of Potential Exposures of Marine Mammals to Received Sound Levels in the Water of ≥160 dB During SOI's Proposed Seismic Program in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea, Alaska, July - November, 2008. Not all marine mammals will change their behavior when exposed to these sound levels, although some might alter their behavior somewhat when levels are lower (see text). Species Number of Individuals Exposed to Sound Levels ≥160dB Chukchi Sea Avg. Max. Beaufort Sea Avg. Max. Total Avg. Max. Odontocetes *Monodontidae* Beluga 63 254 234 938 298 1192 Narwhal 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Delphinidae* Killer whale 2 6 0 0 2 6 *Phocoenidae* Harbor porpoise 57 227 2 6 58 234 Mysticetes * Bowhead Whale a * 9 46 1531 1536 1540 1582 *Fin whale* 2 6 0 0 2 6 Gray whale 182 727 2 6 183 734 *Humpback whale* 2 6 0 0 2 6 Minke whale 2 6 0 0 2 6 Total Cetaceans 70 281 1533 1543 1603 1824 Pinnipeds Bearded seal 270 405 322 1286 592 1691 Ribbon seal 2 6 0 0 2 6 Ringed seal 6951 10827 6305 25221 13256 36047 Spotted seal 361 562 61 243 422 804 Total Pinnipeds 5678 8836 6687 26750 12366 35586 a See text for description of bowhead whale estimate for the Beaufort Sea Potential Marine Mammal Disturbance At Less Than 160 dB Received Levels During autumn seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, migrating bowhead whales displayed avoidance (i.e., deflection) at distances out to 20-30 km (12-19 mi) and received sound levels of ~130 dB
(rms)(Miller *et al.* , 1999; Richardson *et al.* , 1999). Therefore, it is possible that a larger number of bowhead whales than estimated above may be disturbed to some extent if reactions occur at ≥130 dB (rms). However, these references note that bowhead whales below the water surface at a distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an airgun array received pulses of about 117-135 dB re 1 μPa rms, depending upon propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) were about 107-126 dB re 1 μParms. Miller *et al.*
(1999)surmise that deflection may have begun about 35 km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic operations, but did not provide SPL measurements to that distance, and noted that sound propagation has not been studied as extensively eastward in the alongshore direction, as it has northward, in the offshore direction. Therefore, while this single year of data analysis indicates that bowhead whales may make minor deflections in swimming direction at a distance of 30-35 km (18.6-21.7 mi), there is no indication that the sound pressure level
(SPL)where deflection first begins is at 120 dB- it could be at another SPL lower or higher than 120 dB. Miller *et al.*
(1999)also note that the received levels at 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) were considerably lower in 1998 than have previously been shown to elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to seismic pulses. However, the seismic airgun array used in 1998 was larger than the ones used in 1996 and 1997. Therefore, NMFS believes that it cannot scientifically support adopting any single SPL value below 160 dB and apply it across the board for all species and in all circumstances. Second, NMFS has noted in the past that minor course changes during migration are not considered a significant behavioral change and, as indicated in MMS' 2006 Final PEA, have not been seen at other times of the year and during other activities. To show the contextual nature of this minor behavioral modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic operations indicate that when not migrating but involved in feeding, bowhead whales do not move away from a noise source at an SPL of 160 dB. Therefore, while bowheads may avoid an area of 20 km (12.4 mi) around a noise source, when such a determination requires a post-survey computer analysis to find that bowheads have made slight course change, NMFS believes that this does not rise to a level considered to be a significant behavioral response on the part of the marine mammals or under the MMPA, a “take.” NMFS therefore continues to estimate “takings” under the MMPA from impulse noises, such as seismic, as being at a distance of 160 dB (re 1 μPa). NMFS needs to point out however, that while this might not be a “taking” in the sense that there is not a significant behavioral response by bowhead whales, a minor course deflection by bowheads can have a significant impact on the subsistence uses of bowheads. As a result, NMFS still requires mitigation measures to ensure that the activity does not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of bowheads. Finally, it is likely that SOI will not conduct seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea during that part of the fall bowhead migration that occurs at the same time as the fall bowhead subsistence hunt. As a result, a large proportion of the bowhead population would migrate past the Beaufort Sea seismic survey area without being exposed to any seismic sounds. Limiting operations during the fall bowhead whale migration is also meant to reduce any chance of conflicting with subsistence hunting and will continue at least until hunting quotas have been filled by the coastal communities. Potential Impact on Habitat SOI states that the proposed seismic activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, or to their prey sources. Seismic activities will mostly occur during the time of year when bowhead whales are widely distributed and would be expected to occur in very low numbers within the seismic activity area (mid- to late-July through September). Any effects would be temporary and of short duration at any one place. The primary potential impacts to marine mammals is associated with elevated sound levels from the proposed airguns were discussed previously in this document. A broad discussion on the various types of potential effects of exposure to seismic on fish and invertebrates can be found in the NMFS/MMS Draft PEIS for Arctic Seismic Surveys (see ADDRESSES ). Mortality to fish, fish eggs and larvae from seismic energy sources would be expected within a few meters (0.5 to 3 m (1.6 to 9.8 ft)) from the seismic source. Direct mortality has been observed in cod and plaice within 48 hours that were subjected to seismic pulses two meters 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 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 in male snow crabs (Christian *et al.* , 2003). Behavioral changes in fish associated with seismic exposures 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 anywhere from 15-30 minutes (McCauley *et al.* , 2000) to several days (Engas *et al.* , 1996). Available data indicates that mortality and behavioral changes do occur within very close range to the seismic source, however, the proposed seismic acquisition activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are predicted by SOI to have a negligible effect to the prey resource of the various life stages of fish and invertebrates available to marine mammals occurring during the project's duration. In addition, it is unlikely that bowheads, gray, or beluga whales will be excluded from any habitat. Effects of Seismic Noise and Other Related Activities on Subsistence The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by sounds from seismic activities are the principal concerns related to subsistence use within the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The harvest of marine mammals (mainly bowhead whales, but also ringed and bearded seals) is central to the culture and subsistence economies of the coastal North Slope and Western Alaskan communities. In particular, if fall-migrating bowhead whales are displaced farther offshore by elevated noise levels, the harvest of these whales could be more difficult and dangerous for hunters. The impact would be that whaling crews would necessarily be forced to travel greater distances to intercept westward migrating whales thereby creating a safety hazard for whaling crews and/or limiting chances of successfully striking and landing bowheads. The harvest could also be affected if bowheads become more skittish when exposed to seismic noise. Hunters relate how bowhead whales also appear “angry” due to seismic noise, making whaling more dangerous. This potential impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals is proposed by SOI to be mitigated by application of the procedures established in a Conflict Avoidance Agreement
(CAA)between the seismic operators and the AEWC and the Whaling Captains' Associations of Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Barrow, Pt. Hope and Wainwright. SOI notes that the times and locations of seismic and other noise producing sources are likely to be curtailed during times of active bowhead whale scouting and actual whaling activities within the traditional subsistence hunting areas of the potentially affected communities. (See Mitigation for Subsistence). SOI states that seismic survey activities will also be scheduled to avoid the traditional subsistence beluga hunt which annually occurs in July in the community of Pt. Lay. As a result, SOI believes that there should be no adverse impacts on the availability of whale species for subsistence uses. In the event that a CAA is not signed by either party, then NMFS will implement mitigation measures it determines are necessary to ensure that the taking of marine mammals by SOI's seismic and related activities do not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence uses of marine mammals. In the Chukchi Sea, SOI's seismic work should not have unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of the whale species for subsistence uses. The whale species normally taken by Inupiat hunters are the bowhead and belugas. SOI's Chukchi Sea seismic operations will not begin until after July 20, 2008 by which time the majority of bowheads will have migrated to their summer feeding areas in Canada. Even if any bowheads remain in the northeastern Chukchi Sea after July 20, they are not normally hunted after this date until the return migration occurs around late September when a fall hunt by Barrow whalers takes place. In recent years, bowhead whales have occasionally been taken in the fall by coastal villages along the Chukchi coast, but the total number of these animals has been small. Seismic operations for the Chukchi Sea seismic program will be timed and located so as to avoid any possible conflict with the Barrow fall whaling, and specific provisions governing the timing and location are expected to be incorporated, if signed, into a CAA established between SOI and WesternGeco, the AEWC, and the Whaling Captains Associations. Beluga whales may also be taken sporadically for subsistence needs by coastal villages, but traditionally are taken in small numbers very near the coast. However, SOI will establish “communication stations” in the villages to monitor impacts. Gray whales, which will be abundant in the northern Chukchi Sea from spring through autumn, are not taken by subsistence hunters. 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. SOI has summarized concerns received during 2006 and 2007 into the 2007 POC, which was submitted during June 2007 to federal agencies as well as to subsistence stakeholders, and updated in July 2007 and earlier this year. SOI has developed the POC to mitigate and avoid any unreasonable interference by SOI's planned activities on North Slope subsistence uses and resources. The POC is the result of numerous meetings and consultations between SOI, affected subsistence communities and stakeholders, and federal agencies beginning in October 2006 (see Table 12-1 in SOI's IHA application for a list of meetings). The POC identifies and documents potential conflicts and associated measures that will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use. To be effective, SOI believes the POC must be a dynamic document which will expand to incorporate the communications and consultation that will continue to occur throughout 2008. Outcomes of POC meetings are included in quarterly updates attached to the POC and distributed to federal, state, and local agencies as well as local stakeholder groups. SOI hopes that a CAA will result from the POC meetings. In that regard, the AEWC submitted a draft CAA to the industry earlier this spring. If signed, the CAA will incorporate all appropriate measures and procedures regarding the timing and areas of the operator's planned activities (e.g., times and places where seismic operations will be curtailed or moved in order to avoid potential conflicts with active subsistence whaling and sealing); a communications system between operator's vessels and whaling and hunting crews (i.e., the communications center will be located in strategic areas); provision for marine mammal observers/Inupiat communicators aboard all project vessels; conflict resolution procedures; and provisions for rendering emergency assistance to subsistence hunting crews. If requested, post-season meetings will also be held to assess the effectiveness of a 2008 CAA between SOI, the AEWC, and the Whaling Captains Associations, to address how well conflicts (if any) were resolved; and to receive recommendations on any changes (if any) might be needed in the implementation of future CAAs. It should be noted that NMFS is required by the MMPA to make a determination 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 from seismic activities is expected to be impacts from noise on bowhead whales during its westward fall migration and feeding 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). Therefore, 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 use of marine mammals. This determination may require that the IHA contain additional mitigation measures in order for this decision to be made. Mitigation and Monitoring As part of its application, SOI has proposed implementing a marine mammal mitigation and monitoring program
(4MP)that will consist of monitoring and mitigation during SOI's seismic and shallow-hazard survey activities. In conjunction with monitoring during SOI's exploratory drilling program (subject to a separate notice and review), monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by these activities and permit real time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by industrial sounds or activities. These goals will be accomplished by conducting vessel-, aerial-, and acoustic-monitoring programs to characterize the sounds produced by the seismic airgun arrays and related equipment and to document the potential reactions of marine mammals in the area to those sounds and activities. Acoustic modeling will be used to predict the sound levels produced by the seismic, shallow hazards and drilling equipment in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi seas. For the seismic program, acoustic measurements will also be made to establish zones of influence
(ZOIs)around the activities that will be monitored by observers. Aerial monitoring and reconnaissance of marine mammals and recordings of ambient sound levels, vocalizations of marine mammals, and received levels should they be detectable using bottom-founded acoustic recorders along the Beaufort Sea coast will be used to interpret the reactions of marine mammals exposed to the activities. The components of SOI's mitigation and monitoring programs are briefly described next. Additional information can be found in SOI's application. Proposed Mitigation Measures As part of its IHA application, SOI submitted its proposed mitigation and monitoring program for SOI's seismic programs in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas for 2008/2009. SOI notes that the proposed seismic exploration program incorporates both design features and operational procedures for minimizing potential impacts on cetaceans and pinnipeds and on subsistence hunts. Seismic survey design features include:
(1)Timing and locating seismic activities to avoid interference with the annual fall bowhead whale hunts;
(2)configuring the airgun arrays to maximize the proportion of energy that propagates downward and minimizes horizontal propagation;
(3)limiting the size of the seismic energy source to only that required to meet the technical objectives of the seismic survey; and
(4)conducting pre-season modeling and early season field assessments to establish and refine (as necessary) the appropriate 180 dB and 190 dB safety zones, and other radii relevant to behavioral disturbance. The potential disturbance of cetaceans and pinnipeds during seismic operations will be minimized further through the implementation of the following several ship-based mitigation measures. Safety and Disturbance Zones Safety radii for marine mammals around airgun arrays are customarily defined as the distances within which received pulse levels are greater than or equal to 180 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)for cetaceans and greater than or equal to 190 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)for pinnipeds. These safety criteria are based on an assumption that seismic pulses at lower received levels will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities, but that higher received levels might result in such effects. It should be understood that marine mammals inside these safety zones will not necessarily be seriously injured or killed as these zones were established prior to the current understanding that significantly higher levels of impulse sounds would be required before injury or mortality would occur. This has been described previously in this document. SOI anticipates that monitoring similar to that conducted in the Chukchi Sea in 2007 will also be required in the Chukchi and the Beaufort seas in 2008. SOI plans to use marine mammal observers
(MMOs)onboard the seismic vessel to monitor the 190- and 180-dB
(rms)safety radii for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively and to implement appropriate mitigation as discussed in the proceeding sections. SOI also plans to monitor the 160-dB
(rms)disturbance zone with MMOs onboard the chase vessels in 2008 as was done in 2006 and 2007. There has also been concern that received pulse levels as low as 120 dB
(rms)may have the potential to disturb some whales. In 2006 and 2007, there was a requirement in the IHAs issued to SOI by NMFS to implement special mitigation measures if specified numbers of bowhead cow/calf pairs might be exposed to seismic sounds greater than 120 dB rms or if large groups (greater than 12 individuals) of bowhead or gray whales might be exposed to sounds greater than or equal to 160 dB rms. In 2007, monitoring of the 120-dB
(rms)zone was required in the Beaufort Sea after 25 September. For 2008, SOI anticipates that it will not operate in the Chukchi Sea between September 25th and the time ice prevents additional work in the Beaufort Sea, by which time NMFS believes the bowhead whale cow/calf migration period to have been completed. As a result, it is unlikely that SOI will not need to monitor the 120 dB
(rms)zone in the Chukchi Sea in 2008. During the 2006 and 2007 seismic programs in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, SOI utilized a combination of pre-season modeling and early season sound source verification to establish safety zones for these sound level criteria. As the equipment being utilized in 2008 is the same as that used in the 2006 and 2007 field seasons, and the majority of locations where seismic data is to be acquired were modeled prior to the 2006 and 2007 seasons, SOI will initially utilize the derived (measured) sound criterion distances from 2006. Any locations not modeled previously will be modeled prior to 2008 survey initiation and mitigation distances and safety zones adjusted up, if necessary following sound measurements at the new locations. Modeling of the sound propagation is based on the size and configuration of the airgun array and on available oceanographic data. An acoustics contractor will perform the direct measurements of the received levels of underwater sound versus distance and direction from the airgun arrays using calibrated hydrophones. The acoustic data will be analyzed as quickly as reasonably practicable in the field and used to verify (and if necessary adjust) the safety distances. The mitigation measures to be implemented will include ramp ups, power downs, and shut downs as described next. Ramp-Up A ramp up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose of a ramp up (or “soft start”) is to “warn” cetaceans and pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities. During the proposed seismic program, the seismic operator will ramp up the airgun arrays slowly, at a rate no greater than 6 dB/5 minute period. Full ramp ups (i.e., from a cold start after a shut down, when no airguns have been firing) will begin by firing a small airgun in the arrays. The minimum duration of a shut-down period, i.e., without air guns firing, which must be followed by a ramp up typically is the amount of time it would take the source vessel to cover the 180-dB safety radius. That depends on ship speed and the size of the 180-dB safety radius, which are not known at this time. A full ramp up, after a shut down, will not begin until there has been a minimum of a 30-minute period of observation by MMOs of the safety zone to assure that no marine mammals are present. The entire safety zone must be visible during the 30-minute leading up to a full ramp up. If the entire safety zone is not visible, then ramp up from a cold start cannot begin. If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the safety zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp up, ramp up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside of the safety zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15-30 minutes: 15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for baleen whales and large odontocetes. During periods of turn around and transit between seismic transects, at least one airgun will remain operational to alert marine mammals in the area of the vessel's location. The ramp-up procedure still will be followed when increasing the source levels from one air gun to the full arrays. Moreover, keeping one air gun firing will avoid the prohibition of a cold start during darkness or other periods of poor visibility. Through use of this approach, seismic operations can resume upon entry to a new transect without a full ramp up and the associated 30-minute lead-in observations. MMOs will be on duty whenever the airguns are firing during daylight, and during the 30-min periods prior to ramp-ups as well as during ramp-ups. Daylight will occur for 24 hr/day until mid-August, so until that date MMOs will automatically be observing during the 30-minute period preceding a ramp up. Later in the season, MMOs will be called out at night to observe prior to and during any ramp up. The seismic operator and MMOs will maintain records of the times when ramp-ups start, and when the airgun arrays reach full power. Power Downs and Shut Downs A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating airguns from all guns firing to some smaller number. A shut down is the immediate cessation of firing of all airguns. The airgun arrays will be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is sighted approaching close to or within the applicable safety zone of the full airgun arrays (i.e., 180 dB rms for cetaceans, 190 dB rms for pinnipeds), but is outside the applicable safety zone of the single airgun. If a marine mammal is sighted within the applicable safety zone of the single airgun, the airgun array will be shut down (i.e., no airguns firing). Although observers will be located on the bridge ahead of the center of the airgun array, the shutdown criterion for animals ahead of the vessel will be based on the distance from the bridge (vantage point for MMOs) rather than from the airgun array - a precautionary approach. For marine mammals sighted alongside or behind the airgun array, the distance is measured from the array. Operations at Night and in Poor Visibility When operating under conditions of reduced visibility attributable to darkness or to adverse weather conditions, infra-red or night-vision binoculars will be available for use. However, it is recognized that their effectiveness is limited. For that reason, MMOs will not routinely be on watch at night, except in periods before and during ramp-ups. It should be noted that if one small airgun remains firing, the rest of the array can be ramped up during darkness or in periods of low visibility. Seismic operations may continue under conditions of darkness or reduced visibility. Preliminary Mitigation Determination As NMFS believes that the combination of use of the mitigation gun, ramp-up of the seismic airgun array and the slow vessel speed (to allow marine mammals sufficient time to take necessary avoidance measures), the use of trained marine mammal observers and shut-down procedures (to avoid potential injury if the animal is close to the vessel), and the behavioral response of marine mammals (especially bowhead whales) to avoid areas of high anthropogenic noise all provide protection to marine mammals from serious injury or mortality. As a result, NMFS believes that it is not necessary to require termination of survey activities during darkness or reduced visibility and that the current level of mitigation will result in the lowest level of impact on marine mammals practicable. Proposed Marine Mammal Monitoring SOI has proposed to implement a marine mammal monitoring program
(4MP)to collect data to address the following specific objectives:
(1)improve the understanding of the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the Chukchi and Beaufort sea project areas;
(2)understand the propagation and attenuation of anthropogenic sounds in the waters of the project areas;
(3)determine the ambient sound levels in the waters of the project areas; and
(4)assess the effects of sound on marine mammals inhabiting the project areas and their distribution relative to the local people that depend on them for subsistence hunting. These objectives and the monitoring and mitigation goals will be addressed by:
(1)vessel-based MMOs on the seismic source and other support vessels;
(2)an acoustic program to predict and then measure the sounds produced by the seismic operations and the possible responses of marine mammals to those sounds;
(3)an aerial monitoring and reconnaissance of marine mammals available for subsistence harvest along the Chukchi Sea coast; and
(4)bottom-founded autonomous acoustic recorder arrays along the Alaskan coast and offshore in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas to record ambient sound levels, vocalizations of marine mammals, and received levels of seismic operations should they be detectable. Seismic Source Vessel-based Visual Monitoring A sufficient number of MMOs will be required to be onboard the seismic source vessel to meet the following criteria:
(1)100 percent monitoring coverage during all periods of seismic operations in daylight and for the 30 minutes prior to starting ramp-up and for the number of minutes required to reach full ramp-up;
(2)coverage during darkness for 30-minutes before and during ramp-ups (provided MMOs verify that they can clearly see the entire safety zone);
(3)maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per MMO;
(4)maximum of approximately 12 hours on watch per day per MMO with no other shipboard duties; and
(5)two-MMO coverage during ramp-up and the 30 minutes prior to full ramp-ups and for as large a fraction of the other operating hours as possible. To accomplish these tasks SOI proposes to have from three to five MMOs (including one Inupiat observer/communicator) based aboard the seismic vessel. However, NMFS does not consider Inupiat observers to be included in the required minimum number of MMOs unless they have undergone MMO training at a facility approved in advance by NMFS. MMOs will search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are in progress and for at least 30 minutes before the planned start of seismic transmissions or whenever the seismic array's operations have been suspended for more than 10 minutes. The MMOs will scan the area immediately around the vessels with reticle binoculars during the daytime. Laser rangefinding equipment will be available to assist with distance estimation. After mid-August, when the duration of darkness increases, image intensifiers will be used by observers and additional light sources may be used to illuminate the safety zone. The seismic vessel-based work will provide the basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power downs and, as necessary, shut downs), as called for by the IHAs; information needed to estimate the “take” of marine mammals by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS; data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the areas where the seismic program is conducted; information to compare the distances, distributions, behavior; movements of marine mammals relative to the source vessels at times with and without seismic activity; a communication channel to Inupiat whalers through the Communications Coordination Center in coastal villages; and continued employment and capacity building for local residents, with one objective being to develop a larger pool of experienced Inupiat MMOs. The use of four or more MMOs allows two observers to be on duty simultaneously for up to 50 percent of the active airgun hours. The use of two observers increases the probability of detecting marine mammals, and two observers will be on duty for the entire duration of time whenever the seismic array is ramped up. As mentioned previously, individual watches will be limited to no more than 4 consecutive hours to avoid observer fatigue (and no more than 12 hours on watch per 24 hour day). When mammals are detected within or about to enter the safety zone designated to prevent injury to the animals (see Mitigation), the geophysical crew leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures can be implemented immediately. Details of the vessel-based marine mammal monitoring program are described in SOI's IHA application (see Appendix B). Chase Boat Monitoring MMOs will also be present on smaller support vessels that travel with the seismic source vessel. These support vessels are commonly known as “guard boats” or “chase boats.” During seismic operations, a chase boat remains very near to the stern of the source vessel anytime that a member of the source vessel crew is on the back deck deploying or retrieving equipment related to the seismic array. Once the seismic array is deployed the chase boat then serves to keep other vessels away from the seismic source vessel and the seismic array itself (including hydrophone streamer) during production of seismic data and provide additional emergency response capabilities. In the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in 2008, SOI's seismic source vessel will have one associated chase boat and possibly an additional supply vessel. The chase boat and supply vessel (if present) will have three MMOs onboard to collect marine mammal observations and to monitor the 160 dB
(rms)disturbance zone from the seismic airgun array. MMOs on the chase boats will be able to contact the seismic ship if marine mammals are sited. To maximize the amount of time during the day that an observer is on duty, two observers aboard the chase boat or supply vessel will rarely work at the same time. As on the source vessels, shifts will be limited to 4 hrs in length and 12 hrs total in a 24 hr period. SOI plans to monitor the 160-dB
(rms)disturbance radius in 2008 using MMOs onboard the chase vessel. The 160-dB radius in the Chukchi Sea in 2007 was determined by JASCO
(2007)to extend ~8.1 km from the airgun source on the *M/V Gilavar* . In the Beaufort Sea, the 160-dB radius was measured at 13.45 km (8.4 mi) (JASCO, 2007). This area around the seismic vessel was monitored by MMOs onboard the *M/V Gulf Provider* (the chase boat used in 2006 and 2007 operations). As in 2007 during monitoring of the 160-dB zone the *M/V Gulf Provider* will travel ~8 km (5 mi) ahead and to the side of the *M/V Gilavar* . MMOs onboard the *M/V Gulf Provider* will search the area ahead of the *M/V Gilavar* within the 160-dB zone for marine mammals. Every 8 km (5 mi) or so, the *M/V Gulf Provider* will move to the other side of the M/V Gilivar continuing in a stair-step type pattern. The distance at which the *M/V Gulf Provider* (or other equivalent vessel) travels ahead of the *M/V Gilavar* will be determined by the measured 160-dB radius. Mitigation (i.e., power down or shut down of the airgun array) will be implemented if a group of 12 or more bowhead or gray whales enter the 160-dB zone. SOI will use this same protocol in the Beaufort Sea after the 160-dB radius has been determined. Depending upon the size of the measured 160-dB zone around the airgun array SOI may decide to use a vessel equipped with a Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(PAM)system (if it has been independently field tested and certified to NMFS as being capable of detecting marine mammals that inhabit the Arctic Ocean) or may use a second chase boat to ensure effective monitoring of the area. In 2007 the measured distance to the 180-dB isopleth ranged from about 2.45 km (1.5 mi) in the Chukchi Sea to about 2.2 km (1.4 mi) in the Beaufort Sea near the Sivulliq prospect. SOI decided to use an additional vessel to monitor this zone given its importance in protecting marine mammals from potential injury associated with exposure to seismic pulses. Depending upon the measured radius for the 180-dB zone in 2008/2009 SOI may elect to use a PAM system to help monitor this area around the *M/V Gilavar* as well. Aerial Survey Program SOI proposes to conduct an aerial survey program in support of the seismic exploration program in the Beaufort Sea during summer and fall of 2008. The objectives of the aerial survey will be:
(1)to advise operating vessels as to the presence of marine mammals in the general area of operation;
(2)to provide mitigation monitoring (120 dB zones) as may be required under the conditions of the IHA;
(3)to collect and report data on the distribution, numbers, movement and behavior of marine mammals near the seismic operations with special emphasis on migrating bowhead whales;
(4)to support regulatory reporting and Inupiat communications related to the estimation of impacts of seismic operations on marine mammals;
(5)to monitor the accessibility of bowhead whales to Inupiat hunters and
(6)to document how far west of seismic activities bowhead whales travel before they return to their normal migration paths, and if possible, to document how far east of seismic operations the deflection begins. The same aerial survey design will be implemented during the summer (August) and fall (late August-October) period, but during the summer, the survey grid will be flown twice a week, and during the fall, flights will be conducted daily. During the early summer, few cetaceans are expected to be encountered in the nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea where seismic surveys will be conducted. Those cetaceans that are encountered are expected to be either along the coast (gray whales: (Maher, 1960; Rugh and Fraker, 1981; Miller *et al.* , 1999; Treacy, 2000) or seaward of the continental shelf among the pack ice (bowheads: Moore *et al.* , 1989b; Miller *et al.* , 2002; and belugas: Moore *et al.* , 1993; Clark *et al.* , 1993; Miller *et al.* , 1999) north of the area where seismic surveys and drilling activities are to be conducted. During some years a few gray whales are found feeding in shallow nearshore waters from Barrow to Kaktovik but most sightings are in the western part of that area. During the late summer and fall, the bowhead whale is the primary species of concern, but belugas and gray whales are also present. Bowheads and belugas migrate through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from summering areas in the central and eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf to their wintering areas in the Bering Sea (Clarke *et al.* , 1993; Moore *et al.* , 1993; Miller *et al.* , 2002). Some bowheads are sighted in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea starting mid-August and near Barrow starting late August but the main migration does not start until early September. The aerial survey procedures will be generally consistent with those during earlier industry studies (Miller *et al.* , 1997, 1998, 1999; Patterson *et al.* , 2007). This will facilitate comparison and pooling of data where appropriate. However, SOI notes that the specific survey grids will be tailored to SOI's operations and the time of year. Information on survey procedures can be found in SOI's IHA application. Survey Design in the Beaufort Sea in Summer The main species of concern in the Beaufort Sea is the bowhead whale but small numbers of belugas, and in some years, gray whales, are present in the Beaufort Sea during summer (see above). Few bowhead whales are expected to be found in the Beaufort Sea during early August; however, a reduced aerial survey program is proposed during the summer prior to seismic operations to confirm the distribution and numbers of bowheads, gray whales and belugas, because no recent surveys have been conducted at this time of year. The few bowheads that were present in the Beaufort Sea during summer in the late 1980s were generally found among the pack ice in deep offshore waters of the central Beaufort Sea (Moore and DeMaster, 1998; Moore *et al.* , 2000). Although gray whales were rarely sighted in the Beaufort Sea prior to the 1980's (Rugh and Fraker, 1981), sightings appear to have become more common along the coast of the Beaufort Sea in summer and early fall (Miller *et al.* , 1999; Treacy 1998, 2000, 2002; Patterson *et al.* , 2007) possibly because of increases in the gray whale population and/or reductions in ice cover in recent years. Because no summer surveys have been conducted in the Beaufort Sea since the 1980s, the information on summer distribution of cetaceans will be valuable for planning future seismic or drilling operations. The grid that will be flown in the summer will be the same grid flown later in the year, but it will be flown twice a week instead of daily. If ceteceans are encountered in the vicinity of planned seismic operations, then SOI would consider flying the survey grid proposed for later in the season, rather than the early-season survey plan. Surveys will be conducted 2 days/week until the period one week prior to the start of seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea. Beginning approximately one week prior to the start of seismic operations, daily surveys would be initiated and they would be conducted using the grid shown in Figure 3 in Appendix B of SOI's IHA application. Survey Design in the Beaufort Sea in Fall Aerial surveys during the late August-October period will be designed to provide mitigation monitoring as required by the IHA. SOI notes that, if, as in 2006 and 2007, mitigation monitoring is required to ensure that large aggregations of mother-calf bowheads do not approach to within the 120 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)radius from the active seismic operation, priority will be given to mitigation monitoring to the east of the seismic operation (see Appendix B, Figure 2). SOI suggests, that, if permitted by the IHA, it is prepared to conduct some surveys to collect data on the extent of westward deflection while still monitoring the 120-dB radius to the east of the seismic operation. These surveys will obtain detailed data (weather permitting) on the occurrence, distribution, and movements of marine mammals, particularly bowhead whales, within an area that extends about 100 km (62 mi) to the east of the primary seismic vessel to a few km west of it, and north to about 65 km (40 mi) offshore. A westward emphasis would obtain the same data for an area about 100 km (62 mi) to the west of the primary seismic vessel and about 20 km (12 mi) east of it; again about 65 km (40 mi) offshore. This site-specific survey coverage will complement the simultaneous MMS/NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory Bowhead Whales Aerial Survey Program (BWASP) survey coverage of the broader Beaufort Sea area. The proposed survey grid will provide data both within and beyond the anticipated immediate zone of influence of the seismic program, as identified by Miller *et al.* (1999). Miller *et al.*
(1999)were not able to determine how far upstream and downstream (i.e., east and west) of the seismic operations bowheads began deflecting and then returned to their “normal” migration corridor. That is an important concern for the Inupiat whalers. SOI notes that the proposed survey grid is not able to address that concern because of the need to extend flights well to the east to detect mother-calf pairs before they are exposed to seismic sounds greater than 120 dB re 1 μPa. It is possible that the east-west extent of seismic surveys will change during the season due to ice or other operational restrictions. If so, SOI may need to modify the aerial survey grid to maintain observations to 100 km (62 mi) east (or west) of the seismic survey area, but the total km/mi of survey that can be conducted each day are limited by the fuel capacity of the aircraft. The only alternative to ensure adequate aerial survey coverage over the entire area where seismic activities might influence bowhead whale distribution is to space the individual transects farther apart. For each 15-20 km (9.3-12.4 mi) increase in the east-west size of the seismic survey area, the spacing between lines will need to be increased by 1 km (0.62 mi) to maintain survey coverage from 100 km (62 mi) east to 20 km (12.4 mi) west of the seismic activities (or vice versa). Data from the easternmost transects of the proposed survey grid will document the main bowhead whale migration corridor east of the seismic exploration area and will provide the baseline data on the location of the migration corridor relative to the coast. SOI does not propose to fly a smaller “intensive” survey grid in 2008/2009. In previous years, a separate grid of 4-6 shorter transects was flown, whenever possible, to provide additional survey coverage within about 20 km (12.4 mi) of the seismic operations. This coverage was designed to provide additional data on marine mammal utilization of the actual area of seismic exploration and immediately adjacent waters. The 1996-98 studies showed that bowhead whales were almost entirely absent from the area within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the active seismic operation (Miller *et al.* 1997, 1998, 1999). Thus, the flying-time that (in the past) would have been expended on flying the intensive grid will be used to extend the coverage farther to the east and west of the seismic activity. Depending on the distance offshore where seismic is being conducted, the survey grid may not extend far enough offshore to document whales which could potentially deflect north of the operation. In this case, SOI plans to extend the north ends of the transects farther north so that they extend 30-35 km (19-22 mi) north of the seismic operation and the two most westerly (or easterly depending upon the survey design) lines will not be surveyed. This will mean that the survey lines will only extend as far west as the seismic operation or start as far east as the seismic operations. SOI states that it is not possible to move the grid north without surveying areas south of the seismic operation because some whales may deflect south of the seismic operation and that deflection must be monitored. If seismic surveys of the Beaufort Sea end while substantial numbers of bowhead whales are still migrating west, aerial survey coverage of the area of most recent seismic operations will continue for several days after seismic surveys have ended. This will provide “post-seismic” data on whale distribution for comparison with whale distribution during seismic periods. These data will be used in analyses to estimate the extent of deflection during seismic activities and the duration of any potential deflection after surveys end. Post seismic coverage will not be conducted if the bowhead migration has ended by that time, but it is expected that due to freeze-up, seismic operations will move out of the Beaufort Sea before the end of the bowhead whale migration. The survey grid patterns for summer and fall time periods being proposed by SOI are described in SOI's IHA application. Joint Industry Studies Program Chukchi Sea Coastal Aerial Survey The only recent aerial surveys of marine mammals in the Chukchi Sea were conducted along coastal areas of the Chukchi Sea to approximately 20 nmi (37 km) offshore in 2006 and 2007 in support of SOI's summer seismic exploration. These surveys provided data on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in nearshore waters of the Chukchi Sea. Population sizes of several species found they may have changed considerably since earlier surveys were conducted and their distributions may have changed because of changes in ice conditions. SOI plans to conduct an aerial survey program in the Chukchi Sea in 2008 that will be similar to the 2006 and 2007 programs. Alaskan Natives from several villages along the east coast of the Chukchi Sea hunt marine mammals during the summer and Native communities are concerned that offshore oil and gas development activities such as seismic exploration may negatively impact their ability to harvest marine mammals. Of particular concern is the potential impact on the beluga harvest at Point Lay and on future bowhead harvests at Point Hope, Wainwright and Barrow. Other species of concern in the Chukchi Sea include the gray whale, bearded, ringed, and spotted seals, and walrus. The gray whale is expected to be the most numerous cetacean species encountered during the proposed summer seismic activities, although beluga whales also occur in the area. The ringed seal is likely to be the most abundant pinniped species. The current aerial survey program has been designed to collect distribution data on cetaceans but will be limited in its ability to collect similar data on pinnipeds because of aircraft altitude. The aerial survey program will be conducted in support of the SOI seismic program in the Chukchi Sea during summer and fall of 2008/2009. The objectives of the aerial survey will be
(1)to address data deficiencies in the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in coastal areas of the eastern Chukchi Sea; and
(2)to collect and report data on the distribution, numbers, orientation and behavior of marine mammals, particularly beluga whales, near traditional hunting areas in the eastern Chukchi Sea. With agreement from hunters in the coastal villages, aerial surveys of coastal areas to approximately 20 mi (37 km) offshore between Point Hope and Point Barrow will begin in early- to mid-July and will continue until mid-November or until seismic operations in the Chukchi Sea are completed. Weather and equipment permitting, surveys will be conducted twice per week during this time period. In addition, during the 2008/2009 field season, SOI will coordinate and cooperate with the aerial surveys conducted by NMML for MMS and any other groups conducting surveys in the same region. For a description of the aerial survey procedures, please see SOI's IHA application. Acoustic “Net” Array: Chukchi Sea The acoustic “net” array used during the 2007 field season in the Chukchi Sea was designed to accomplish two main objectives. The first was to collect information on the occurrence and distribution of beluga whales that may be available to subsistence hunters near villages located on the Chukchi Sea coast. The second objective was to measure the ambient noise levels near these villages and record received levels of sounds from seismic survey activities further offshore in the Chukchi Sea. The net array configuration used in 2007 is again proposed for 2008/2009. The basic components are 30 ocean bottom hydrophones
(OBH)systems. Two separate deployments with different placement configurations are planned. The first deployment will occur in mid-July immediately following the beluga hunt and will be adjusted to avoid any interference with the hunt. The initial net array configuration will include and extend the 2006 configuration (see Figures 8 and 9 in Appendix B of SOI's application for number of OBHs and locations for the two deployments). These offshore systems will capture seismic exploration sounds over large distances to help characterize the sound transmission properties of larger areas of the Chukchi Sea. The second deployment will occur in late August at the same time that all currently deployed systems will be recovered for battery replacement and data extraction. The second deployment emphasizes the offshore coverage out to 72 degrees North (80 nm north of Wainwright, 150 nm (172 mi; 278 km) north of Point Lay, and 180 nm (207mi; 333 km) north of Cape Lizbourne. The primary goal of extending the arrays further offshore later in the season is to obtain greater coverage of the central Chukchi Sea to detect vocalization from migrating bowheads starting in September. The specific geometries and placements of the arrays are primarily driven by the objectives of
(a)detecting the occurrence and approximate offshore distributions of belugas and possibly bowhead whales during the July to mid-August period and primarily by bowhead whales during the mid-August to late-October period,
(b)measuring ambient noise, and
(c)measuring received levels of seismic survey activities. Timing of deployment and final positions will b subject to weather and ice conditions, based on consultation with local villages, and carried out to minimize any interference with subsistence hunting or fishing activities. Additionally, a set of 4 to 6 OBH systems will be deployed near the end of the season to collect data throughout the winter. Acoustic Array: Beaufort Sea In addition to the continuation of the acoustic net array program in the Chukchi Sea in 2008/2009, SOI proposes to also continue a program that deployed directional acoustic recording systems in the Beaufort Sea. The purpose of the array will be to further understand, define, and document sound characteristics and propagation resulting from offshore seismic and other industry operations that may have the potential to cause deflections of bowhead whales from anticipated migratory pathways. Of particular interest will be the east-west extent of deflection (i.e. how far east of a sound source do bowheads begin to deflect and how far to the west beyond the sound source does deflection persist). Of additional interest will be the extent of offshore deflection that occurs. In previous work around seismic and drill-ship operations in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, the primary method for studying this question has been aerial surveys. Acoustic localization methods provide a supplementary methods for addressing these questions. As compared with aerial surveys, acoustic methods have the advantage of providing a vastly larger number of whale detections, and can operate day or night, independent of visibility, and to some degree independent of ice conditions and sea state-all of which prevent or impair aerial surveys. However, acoustic methods depend on the animals to call, and to some extent assume that calling rate is unaffected by exposure to industrial noise. Bowheads do call frequently in the fall, but there is some evidence that their calling rate may be reduced upon exposure to industrial sounds, complicating interpretation. The combined use of acoustic and aerial survey methods will provide information about these issues. SOI has contracted with Greeneridge to conduct the whale acoustic monitoring program using the passive acoustics techniques developed and used successfully since 2001 for monitoring the bowhead migration past BP's Northstar oil production facility northwest of Prudhoe Bay. Those techniques involve using directional autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders (DASARs) to measure the arrival angles of bowhead calls at known locations, then triangulating to locate the calling whale. Thousands, in some years tens of thousands, of whale calls have been located each year since 2001. The 2008/2009 study will use a new model of the DASAR similar to those deployed in 2007. Figure 11 in Appendix B of SOI's IHA application shows potential locations of the DASARs. The results of these data will be used to determine the extent of deflection of migrating bowhead whales from the sound sources. More information on DASARs and this part of SOI's monitoring program can be found in SOI's IHA application. Additional Mitigation and Monitoring Measures In addition to the standard mitigation and monitoring measures mentioned previously, NMFS is proposing to incorporate additional mitigation/monitoring measures (such as expanded monitoring-safety zones for bowhead and gray whales, and having those zones monitored effectively) into the 2008/2009 IHA to ensure that impacts on marine mammals are at the lowest level practicable. The additional mitigation measures are specific for the SOI seismic project, in part because SOI incorporated monitoring measures in the 4MP document that makes this monitoring practicable. It should be recognized that these mitigation/monitoring measures do not establish NMFS policy applicable to other projects or other locations under NMFS' jurisdiction, as each application for an IHA is context-specific. These measures have been developed based upon available data specific to the project areas. NMFS and MMS intend to collect additional information from all sources, including industry, non-governmental organizations, Alaska Natives and other federal and state agencies regarding measures necessary for effectively monitoring marine mammal populations, assessing impacts from seismic on marine mammals, and determining practicable measures for mitigating those impacts. MMS and NMFS anticipate that mitigation measures applicable to future seismic and other activities may change and evolve based on newly-acquired data. Reporting Daily Reporting In its IHA application, SOI proposes to collect, via the aerial flights, unanalyzed bowhead sighting and flightline data which will be exchanged between MMS and SOI on a daily basis during the field season. NMFS is proposing that each team will also submit its sighting information to NMFS in Anchorage each day. After the SOI and MMS data files have been reviewed and finalized, they will be shared in digital form. Interim Report The results of the 2008 SOI vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of take by harassment, will be presented in the “90 day” and final Technical Report as required by NMFS under IHAs. SOI proposes that the Technical Report will include:
(1)summaries of monitoring effort: total hours, total distances, and distribution through study period, sea state, and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
(2)analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals: sea state, number of observers, and fog/glare;
(3)species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories, group sizes, and ice cover;
(4)sighting rates of marine mammals versus operational state (and other variables that could affect detectability);
(5)initial sighting distances versus operational state;
(6)closest point of approach versus seismic state;
(7)observed behaviors and types of movements versus operational state;
(8)numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus operational state;
(9)distribution around the drilling vessel and support vessels versus operational state; and
(10)estimates of take based on
(a)numbers of marine mammals directly seen within the relevant zones of influence (160 dB, 180 dB, 190 dB (if SPLs of that level are measured)), and
(b)numbers of marine mammals estimated to be there based on sighting density during daytime hours with acceptable sightability conditions. This report will be due 90 days after termination of the 2008 open water season and will include the results from any seismic work conducted in the Chukchi/Beaufort Seas in 2008 under the previous IHA. Comprehensive Monitoring Reports In November, 2007, SOI (in coordination and cooperation with other Arctic seismic IHA holders) released a final, peer-reviewed edition of the 2006 Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-November 2006 (LGL, 2007). This report is available for downloading on the NMFS website (see ADDRESSES ). A draft comprehensive report for 2007 was provided to NMFS and those attending the NMFS/MMS Arctic Ocean open water meeting in Anchorage, AK on April 14-16, 2008. Based on reviewer comments made at that meeting, SOI is currently revising this report and plans to make it available to the public shortly. Following the 2008 open water season, a comprehensive report describing the proposed acoustic, vessel-based, and aerial monitoring programs will be prepared. The 2008 comprehensive report will describe the methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual data sets in detail. The report will also integrate (to the extent possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry activities and their impacts on marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea during 2008 (work conducted in 2009 under the proposed 2008/2009 IHA will be analyzed in a 2009 comprehensive report). The 2008 report will form the basis for future monitoring efforts and will establish long term data sets to help evaluate changes in the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea ecosystems. The report will also incorporate studies being conducted in the Chukchi Sea and will attempt to provide a regional synthesis of available data on industry activity in offshore areas of northern Alaska that may influence marine mammal density, distribution and behavior. This comprehensive report will consider data from many different sources including two relatively different types of aerial surveys; several types of acoustic systems for data collection (net array, passive acoustic monitoring, vertical array, and other acoustical monitoring systems that might be deployed), and vessel based observations. Collection of comparable data across the wide array of programs will help with the synthesis of information. However, interpretation of broad patterns in data from a single year is inherently limited. Much of the 2008 data will be used to assess the efficacy of the various data collection methods and to establish protocols that will provide a basis for integration of the data sets over a period of years. Endangered Species Act
(ESA)Under section 7 of the ESA, the NMFS has begun consultation with MMS on the proposed seismic survey activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas during 2008/2009. NMFS will also consult on the issuance of the IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to SOI for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to NMFS making a determination on the issuance of an IHA. 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. Availability of the Draft and Final PEA was noticed by NMFS in several Federal Register notices regarding issuance of IHAs to SOI and others. NMFS was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the MMS PEA. On November 17, 2006, NMFS and MMS announced that they were jointly preparing a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS)to assess the impacts of MMS' annual authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)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, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)noticed the availability for comment of the NMFS/MMS Draft PEIS. A Final PEIS has not been completed. In order to meet NMFS' NEPA requirements for the proposed IHA to SOI, NMFS is preparing a supplement to the 2006 Final PEA which incorporates by reference the 2006 Final PEA and other related documents. Upon completion, a copy of this Supplemental EA will be available upon request. Preliminary Determinations Based on the information provided in SOI's application, this document, the MMS 2006 Final PEA for Arctic Seismic Surveys, the 2006 and 2007 Comprehensive Monitoring Reports by SOI and others, and NMFS' 2008 Final Supplemental EA, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of SOI conducting seismic surveys in the northern Chukchi Sea and eastern and central Beaufort Sea in 2008/2009 will have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals and that there will not be any unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence communities, provided the mitigation measures described in this document are implemented (see Mitigation). For reasons explained previously in this document, NMFS has preliminarily determined that no take by serious injury, death or stranding is anticipated by, or authorized to, SOI's 2008/2009 seismic survey activities, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. The best scientific information indicates that an auditory injury is unlikely to occur as apparently sounds need to be significantly greater than 180 dB for injury to occur. NMFS has preliminarily determined that exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight TTS in hearing in a small odontocete. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. For baleen whales, while there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS, there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales (bowheads, gray whales and humpback whales) would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of onset of TTS. For pinnipeds, information indicates that for single seismic impulses, sounds would need to be higher than 190 dB rms for TTS to occur while exposure to several seismic pulses indicates that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations. Therefore, the requirement for MMOs to monitor safety zones (180 dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds) and power-down or shutdown arrays even at this distance and the increasing effectiveness of an MMO seeing a marine mammal prior to entering a close-in zone where auditory injury could occur indicates to NMFS that the 180 dB and 190-dB safety zones for cetaceans and pinnipeds respectively, provides a sufficient buffer to prevent PTS in marine mammals. NMFS has also preliminarily determined that only small numbers of marine mammals will be harassed by SOI's 2008 seismic and shallow hazard programs. As discussed previously, the species most likely to be harassed during seismic surveys in the Arctic Ocean area is the ringed seal, with a total “best estimate” of 13,256 animals being “exposed” to sound levels of 160 dB or greater(6,951 animals in the Chukchi Sea and 6,305 animals in the Beaufort Sea)(see Table 1). As explained previously, this does not mean that this is the number of ringed seals that will actually have a behavioral reaction to the noise, rather it is simply the best estimate of the number of animals that potentially could have a behavioral modification due to the noise. For example Moulton and Lawson
(2002)indicate that most pinnipeds exposed to seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do not visibly react to that sound; pinnipeds are not likely to react to seismic sounds unless they are greater than 170 dB re 1 microPa (rms). In addition as discussed previously, these estimates are calculated based upon line miles of survey effort (also animal density and the calculated zone of influence), the resulting take estimate numbers tend to be highly inflated, because animals that might have been affected (taken) are likely to have moved out of the area to avoid additional annoyance from the seismic sounds (assuming they were taken in the first place). As a result, NMFS believes that these “exposure” estimates for pinnipeds are conservative and seismic and shallow hazard surveys will actually affect significantly less than 5 percent of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ringed seal populations. This preliminary finding also applies to other pinniped species in the Arctic. Even if the estimate of 13,256 ringed seals being behaviorally harassed is not a small number in absolute terms, it is relatively small, representing only about 5.3 percent of the regional stock size of that species (249,000), if each “exposure” at 160 dB represents an individual ringed seal that has reacted to that sound and less if a higher SPL is required for a behavioral reaction (as is expected) or animals moved out of the seismic area. As a result, we believe that these “exposure” estimates are conservative and seismic and shallow hazard surveys will actually affect significantly less than 5 percent of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea ringed seal populations. This finding also applies to other pinniped species in the Arctic. The estimated number of Level B harassment takes represented as “exposures” during SOI's seismic and shallow hazard surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is 297 beluga (63 in the Chukchi Sea, 234 in the Beaufort Sea) and 1,540 bowheads (9 in the Chukchi Sea and 1,531 in the Beaufort Sea). The Level B harassment “take” estimate represents less than 1 percent of the combined Beaufort and Chukchi Seas beluga stock size of 42,968 (39,258 in the Beaufort Sea; 3,710 in the Chukchi Sea), a relatively small number. For bowhead whales, this Level B harassment “take” estimate represents between 12 percent (based on 13,326 bowheads which assumes a 3.4 percent annual population growth rate from the 2001 estimate) and 14 percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas bowhead population (based on the 2001 population estimate of 10,545 animals). However, NMFS currently estimates that this population percentage estimate will be lower because SOI has significantly reduced its planned days of seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea to only 20 days (September 25 to about October 15th or when surveys are curtailed by ice). While these exposure numbers may represent a somewhat sizable portion of the population size of bowhead whales (12-14 percent), NMFS believes that the estimated number of bowhead exposures overestimate actual takings for the following reasons:
(1)SOI plans to concentrate its 3D seismic survey program in 2008 in the Lease Sale 193 area of the Chukchi Sea and only move into the Beaufort Sea after the bowhead subsistence hunt is completed (and a sizeable portion of the bowhead population will have migrated past SOI's planned seismic location by that time), and
(2)the proposed shallow hazard survey activities would occur in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas at a time when bowheads are mostly concentrated in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. As a result, NMFS has preliminarily determined that relatively few bowhead whales will be taken and that only small numbers of marine mammals will be harassed by SOI's 2008 seismic and shallow hazard programs. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the short-term impact of conducting seismic surveys in the U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort seas 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 (see Estimated Takes for NMFS' analysis). In addition, for reasons described previously, injury (temporary or permanent hearing impairment) and/or mortality is unlikely and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required by the authorization. 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. Finally, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed seismic activity by SOI in the northern Chukchi Sea and central and eastern Beaufort Sea in 2008/2009 will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence uses of bowhead whales and other marine mammals. This preliminary determination is supported by the information in this Federal Register Notice, including:
(1)Seismic activities in the Chukchi Sea will not begin until after July 20 by which time the spring bowhead hunt is expected to have ended;
(2)that the fall bowhead whale hunt in the Beaufort Sea will either be governed by a CAA between SOI and the AEWC and village whaling captains or by mitigation measures to protect subsistence hunting of marine mammals contained in the IHA;
(3)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;
(4)while it is possible that accessibility to belugas during the spring subsistence beluga hunt could be impaired by the survey, it is unlikely because very little of the proposed survey is within 25 km (15.5 mi) of the Chukchi Sea coast, meaning the vessel will usually be well offshore and away from areas where seismic surveys would influence beluga hunting by communities; and
(5)because seals (ringed, spotted, bearded) are hunted in nearshore waters and the seismic survey will remain offshore of the coastal and nearshore areas of these seals where natives would harvest these seals, it should not conflict with harvest activities. As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SOI for conducting a seismic survey in the northern Chukchi Sea and central and eastern Beaufort Sea in 2008/2009, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: June 20, 2008. P. Michael Payne, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-14393 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Request under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) June 19, 2008. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for thread and yarn of acrylic staple fiber. SUMMARY: On June 10, 2008, the Government of the United States received a request from the Government of Canada alleging that acrylic staple fiber, classified in subheading 5503.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the governments of Mexico and the United States consult to consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for thread and yarns classified under HTSUS subheadings 55.08 through 55.11 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American acrylic staple fiber. The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin only after reaching an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether acrylic staple fiber of HTSUS subheading 5503.30 can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by July 25, 2008 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin J. Walsh or Maria K. Dybczak, International Trade Specialists, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-2818 and
(202)482-3651, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 USC 1854); Section 202(q) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 USC 3332(q)); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. Background Under the NAFTA, NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides that the rules of origin for textile and apparel products may be amended through a subsequent agreement by the NAFTA countries. See Section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. In consultations regarding such a change, the NAFTA countries are to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area and whether domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the good in a timely manner. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification. See section 202(q) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. On June 10, 2008, the Government of the United States received a request from the Government of Canada alleging that acrylic staple fiber, classified in subheading 5503.30 of the HTSUS, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the governments of Mexico and the United States consult to consider whether the NAFTA rule of origin for thread and yarns classified under HTSUS subheadings 55.08 through 55.11 should be modified to allow the use of non-North American acrylic staple fiber. CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether acrylic staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than July 25, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. If a comment alleges that acrylic staple fiber can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces the acrylic staple fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production. CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential“ from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary. R. Matthew Priest, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E8-14408 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 25, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: June 20, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Study of the Effects of the Section 1003(e) Hold Harmless Provision on Title I Allocations. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 49. *Burden Hours:* 196. *Abstract:* This study will examine the impact of the 100 percent hold-harmless provision under Section 1003(e) on states' Title I Part A allocations to school districts. Findings from this study will inform the upcoming reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA)and will help to guide policymakers who may consider potential changes to Section 1003 and the hold-harmless provision. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3745. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-14399 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Waivers for the Rehabilitation Training—Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program
(RCEP)AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of waivers for the Rehabilitation Training—Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program (RCEP). SUMMARY: The Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c)(2) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), respectively, that generally prohibit project periods exceeding five years and project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. These waivers will enable seven current RCEP grantees to provide continuing education to employees of vocational rehabilitation
(VR)agencies and their partners and to continue to receive some additional Federal funding from July 1 through September 30, 2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* These waivers are effective June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave, SW., room 5053, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:
(202)245-7429 or via Internet: *Christine.Marschall@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 2008, we published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 26974), proposing waivers of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c)(2) of EDGAR in order to give early notice of the possibility that the Department will continue to fund seven current RCEP grantees from July 1 through September 30, 2008. The RCEPs provide continuing education to employees of State VR agencies and their partners, as well as other rehabilitation services agencies. The Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)in the Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is in the process of redesigning the RCEPs to create and support 10 regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
(TACE)centers. (For more information on the TACE centers, see the notice of final priority that the Department published in the **Federal Register** on June 5, 2008 (73 FR 32010). The Department intends to make awards for the TACE centers so that grant activities can begin by October 1, 2008. The waivers announced in this notice ensure that services provided by the current RCEP grantees are provided to the extent possible through September 30, 2008, the anticipated date that the TACE centers will commence their project activities. The project periods for the following current RCEP grantees end on June 30, 2008:
(1)State University of New York at Buffalo,
(2)George Washington University,
(3)the University of Arkansas,
(4)the University of Missouri-Columbia,
(5)the University of Northern Colorado,
(6)San Diego State University, and
(7)Western Washington University. Because it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in continuing education activities before grants for RSA's new TACE projects are awarded and implemented, the Secretary will provide some additional funding to these seven RCEP grantees that are in the fifth year of their project periods to allow them to continue operating through September 30, 2008. Note: RSA does not plan to continue funding any other RCEPs with the exception of three RCEP grantees currently in the fourth year of their grant (Assumption College, the University of Tennessee, and Georgia State University) with budget periods ending on June 30, 2008. For these three RCEP grantees, the Secretary plans to extend their current budget period and provide some additional funding to support continuing education activities through September 30, 2008. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation to comment on the proposed waivers, we received 13 comments, all expressing support for the waivers. As a result, there are no changes in the final waivers. Waiver of Delayed Effective Date The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a substantive rule be published at least 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). We provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the Secretary's intent to waive the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c)(2) of EDGAR for current RCEP grantees that have grants ending on June 30, 2008, to enable them to provide continuing education to employees of VR agencies and their partners and to continue to receive some additional Federal funding from July 1 through September 30, 2008. All of the comments that we received supported the proposed waivers. Given that the current RCEP grantees' project periods will expire on June 30, 2008, in order to ensure that there is no lapse in the services provided by these grantees, the Secretary has determined that a delayed effective date is impracticable and would be contrary to the public interest. Final Waivers—Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program The Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which prohibit project periods exceeding five years and extensions of project periods that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds, for current RCEP grantees in the fifth year of their grants. With these waivers, the seven RCEP grantees that have grants ending on June 30, 2008, are eligible for additional funding, as available, to allow them to continue their activities through September 30, 2008. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that the announced waivers will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This notice of waivers does not contain any information collection requirements. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.264A, Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program) Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772. Dated: June 20, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-14413 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, July 25, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Talamini, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, Germantown Building, Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585; *Telephone:*
(301)903-4563. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of this meeting is to provide advice and guidance with respect to the basic energy sciences research program. *Tentative Agenda:* Agenda will include discussions of the following: • News from DOE. • News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. • Report of the COV of the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division. • Reports from the BES Nanoscience Centers. • Report from the New Era Subcommittee. *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Karen Talamini at 301-903-6594
(fax)or *karen.talamini@science.doe.gov* (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Issued in Washington, DC on June 20, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14343 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; *Telephone:* 301-903-0536. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of Meeting:* To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research. *Tentative Agenda:* Agenda will include discussions of the following: Thursday, August 21, 2008 • Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation. • Presentation of the Performance Measures Subcommittee Report. • Update on Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory. • User Facility Reports. • Update on Fundamental Neutron Physics Beam. • Public Comment (10-minute rule). *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or *Brenda.May@science.doe.gov* (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of the meeting will be available on the U.S. Department of Energy's *Office of Nuclear Physics* Web site for viewing. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14340 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Science. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Monday, August 4, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to noon. ADDRESSES: The Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20877. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert L. Opdenaker, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-4927. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* The Office of Fusion Energy Sciences
(OFES)is developing a new strategic plan for the Fusion Energy Sciences
(FES)program. The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) recently completed its report on scientific themes and issues facing the magnetic fusion portion of the FES program. At this meeting, FESAC will hear a status report from each of its two current panels, one that is identifying the scientific themes and issues facing the four major alternate confinement concepts, and the other identifying the scientific themes and issues facing the high energy density laboratory plasmas program. Once these panels complete their work, their output along with the previous FESAC report on the themes and issues facing the magnetic fusion program will inform the efforts of OFES to produce a new strategic plan. In addition, the committee will hear a scientific paper, the topic of which has yet to be determined. Tentative Agenda Monday, August 4, 2008 • OFES: Plan for developing a new strategic plan for FES • ITER Project Status • Status Report: Panel on High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas • Status Report: Panel on Alternate Confinement Concepts • Public Comments Tuesday, August 5, 2008 • Scientific Paper: TBD • Discussion of Strategic Plan Development • Adjourn *Public Participation:* The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Albert L. Opdenaker at 301-903-8584
(fax)or *albert.opdenaker@science.doe.gov* (e-mail). Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. *Minutes:* The minutes of the meeting will be available on the U.S. Department of Energy's *Office of Fusion Energy Sciences* Web site ( *http://www.science.doe.gov/ofes/* ). Issued at Washington, DC, on June 20, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14337 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP06-5-009] Empire Pipeline Inc.; Notice of Application June 17, 2008. Take notice that on June 10, 2008, Empire Pipeline, Inc. (EPI), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in Docket No. CP06-5-009, an application under section 7of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission on December 21, 2006. EPI requests authorization to amend its certificate to make a minor route realignment in the Town of Farmington, Ontario County, New York, between mileposts 3.8 and 4.8, in the vicinity of the New York State Thruway. The application is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
(202)502-8659 or TTY,
(202)208-3676. Any questions regarding this petition should be directed to David W. Reitz, Attorney for Empire Pipeline, Inc., 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, NY 14221, at
(716)857-7949, by fax at
(716)857-7206, or at *reitzd@natfuel.com.* Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment
(EA)and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Comment Date: July 8, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14286 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PT08-1-000] Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project, Request for Comments On Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings June 17, 2008. The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)that will identify and address the environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project (DPV2 or Project). The DPV2 is proposed by Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize the Project. This notice describes the proposed Project facilities and explains the scoping process that will be used to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period for the Project will close on August 1, 2008. Comments on the Project may be submitted in written form or verbally. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, you are invited to attend the public scoping meetings that have been scheduled in the Project area. These meetings are scheduled for July 8, 2008 in Quartzsite, Arizona and July 9, 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona. Further instructions on how to submit comments and additional details of the public scoping meetings are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS and will prepare the document to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The document will be used by the FERC to consider the environmental impacts that could result from the Commission's use of its supplemental siting authority for interstate transmission lines under section 216 of the Federal Power Act. 1 The NEPA document will address the environmental impacts of proposed facilities for the entire project; however, the Commission's permit review process will be limited solely to the facilities located within the Arizona portion of the proposed project. The California Public Utilities Commission approved the California portion of the facilities on January 25, 2007. 1 Section 1221of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Federal Power Act by adding a new Section 216. It is the FERC's goal that other federal agencies will participate in the environmental review process as cooperating agencies to satisfy their respective NEPA responsibilities. With this notice, we 2 are asking federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues and tribal leaders to cooperate formally with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated SCE's proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that intend to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in the Public Participation section of this notice. 2 ”We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by an SCE representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Project facilities. SCE would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement and only if the project is approved by FERC, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “A Guide to the Electric Transmission Construction Permit Process” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric.asp* ). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings. Summary of the Proposed Project SCE proposes to construct a new high-voltage electric transmission line between Maricopa County, Arizona and Riverside County, California. The DPV2 Project consists of 267 miles of new transmission lines which include two primary route segments. The Devers-Harquahala Junction segment is approximately 225 miles long and would extend from SCE's existing Devers Substation, near Palm Springs, California to a new Harquahala Junction Switchyard, approximately 50 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. The Devers-Valley No. 2 segment would extend approximately 42 miles southwesterly from Devers Substation to SCE's Valley Substation, near Romoland, California. The entire line would be constructed within or adjacent to existing SCE rights-of-way (ROW). Approximately 170 miles of the Project is located in California and 97 miles is located in Arizona. In addition, SCE proposes to construct a new Harquahala Junction Switchyard in Arizona and an optional Midpoint Substation/Switchyard near Blythe, California; expand and/or modify the existing Devers and Valley Substations; and install two new 500 kilovolt
(kV)series capacitor banks, one in Arizona and one in California. The majority of the structures used for the Project would be single circuit lattice steel towers, typically spanning four structures per mile. The average height of these structures would be approximately 150 feet, with heights that would vary according to terrain, environmental conditions and site-specific mitigation requirements. The Midpoint Substation is considered an optional project component; SCE has received a large number of interconnection requests for new renewable and new conventional gas-fired generation in this area. Development of these projects would require construction of the Midpoint Substation. A general overview map of the Project area and facilities is provided in Appendix 1. 3 3 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the **Federal Register** . Copies of all appendices are available on the Commission's Internet *Web site* ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room at
(202)502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the Availability of Additional Information section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made directly to SCE by calling 1-866-602-3782. Specifically, the facilities proposed by SCE include the following: • *Devers-Harquahala Line* —construction of approximately 225 miles of new 500 kV, single-circuit alternating current transmission line from near Palm Springs, California to near Phoenix, Arizona. • *Devers-Valley No. 2 Line* —construction of approximately 42 miles of new 500 kV, single-circuit alternating current transmission line from near Palm Springs, California, to near Romoland, California. • *Devers Substation Expansion* —installation of new 135-foot-high by 90 foot-wide dead-end structures, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches; a 500 kV shunt line reactor and associated disconnect switches; a 500 kV static volt ampere reactive compensator; and two MVAR shunt capacitors. • *Valley Substation Modification* —installation of dead-end structures, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches within the existing 500 kV switchrack. • *Harquahala Junction Switchyard* —construction of a new 500 kV switchyard facility on a 40 acre site, near Phoenix, Arizona that would include installation of dead-end structures, circuit breakers and disconnect switches within a new 500 kV switchrack. • *Optional Midpoint Substation/Switchyard* —construction of a new 500 kV switchyard facility on a 44 acre site, near Blythe, California including installation of buses, circuit breakers and disconnect switches. Also, installation of a new communications facility that would include three new microwave paths and two fiber optic systems, a mechanical-electrical control room and a microwave tower. • *Series Capacitors* —installation of two series capacitor banks, one in Arizona and one in California. Major components include series capacitors, dead-end structures, telecommunication equipment, outdoor lighting, grounding grid, and a mechanical-electrical equipment room. SCE states that the purpose of the Project is to relieve transmission congestion between Arizona and California, provide regional economic benefits to California and Arizona, increase competition among energy suppliers by increasing the electricity market liquidity at the Palo Verde Hub, and provide access to renewable energy. SCE anticipates that construction of the DPV2 Project would begin in February 2010, with a projected in-service date of December 2011. Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the proposed electric transmission line and associated facilities would require approximately 4,400 acres of land, including the construction right-of-way, temporary work areas, access roads, storage and contractor yards and substation facilities. Following construction, the majority of the land would be retained as permanent ROW for the transmission line and operation of the substation facility sites. SCE would construct 150 miles of the proposed Devers-Harquahala 500 kV transmission line within a 130-foot-wide ROW granted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Of this total, 57.2 miles is in California and 92.7 miles is in Arizona. The Devers-Harquahala route on BLM land is entirely within the Utility Corridors designated in BLM's Resource Management Plans. The ROW also includes land managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Department of Defense. The remainder of the Devers-Harquahala line would cross state, tribal, and private lands. All lands are vacant and undeveloped. The majority of the line would parallel the existing Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 500 kV transmission line. The Devers-Valley No. 2 transmission line located in California would be constructed about 130 feet south of the existing Devers-Valley No. 1 line. The route would traverse a small portion of the San Bernardino National Forest and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and is wholly within existing ROWs. The privately-owned lands that the line would cross are primarily unincorporated areas. Portions of the line would be located within undeveloped portions of the Cities of Palm Springs (2.1 miles), Banning (0.5 miles), and Beaumont (0.5 miles). Construction of the California portion of the DPV2 transmission line would require the expansion of the Devers Substation to the northeast on unimproved land that is already owned by SCE. However, it would not be necessary to expand the Valley Substation in order to accommodate the DPV2 line. Construction of the optional Midpoint Substation would require 44 acres of land and an additional 5 acres for a temporary laydown area to be located at or near the existing roadway at the substation site. Construction of the proposed new Harquahala Junction Switchyard in Arizona would be on a 40-acre site located in Section 25, Township 2 north, Range 8 West, near 451st Avenue and the Thomas Road alignment. The site is adjacent to the location where the existing DPV1 and Harquahala-Hassayampa 500 kV transmission lines intersect. Construction of the Harquahala Junction Switchyard would require an agreement among SCE, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), and the Harquahala Generating Company to allow APS to connect its planned TS-5 transmission line at the Harquahala Junction Switchyard. SCE does not yet have such an agreement, and as an alternative to the termination at the Harquahala Junction Switchyard, the Devers-Harquahala transmission line could terminate at the Harquahala Generating Station Switchyard, which is located approximately five miles west of the proposed Harquahala Junction Switchyard. Termination at the Harquahala Generating Station Switchyard would require an additional five miles of 500 kV transmission line and 23 new, single circuit tubular steel poles. A 500 kV shunt-line reactor and associated disconnect devices would be installed on generation station property on approximately two acres of property that would be acquired for this purpose. Installation of the proposed two new 500 kV series capacitor banks would be on BLM land that is adjacent to DPV1 series capacitor banks. The proposed Arizona series capacitor site would be located approximately 55 miles west of the Harquahala Junction Switchyard and would be accessed from the nearby El Paso natural gas pipeline access road. The California series capacitor site would be located approximately 64 miles east of the Devers Substation in the Chuckwalla Valley. Both facilities would occupy approximately two acres inside the fenced site and temporarily use a one-acre fenced area for material laydown, storage, and staging. The EIS Process NEPA requires the FERC to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a permit to construct electric transmission facilities. The EIS we are preparing is intended to provide FERC and cooperating agencies with the necessary information for consideration during each respective agency's review of potential environmental impacts. Although no formal application has been filed with the FERC, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the FERC's pre-filing process, which was established in Order No. 689. 4 The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A diagram summarizing the permit review process and opportunities for public participation for the Project is attached to this notice as Appendix 2. 4 *Regulations for Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities* , Order No. 689, 71 **Federal Register** 69,440 (December 1, 2006), FERC Statutes & Regulations ¶31,234
(2006)(Final Rule). The FERC staff has already started to meet and communicate with SCE, jurisdictional agencies, and other interested stakeholders to discuss the Project and identify issues and concerns. We will continue the pre-filing process by conducting interagency and public scoping meetings in the Project area to solicit comments and concerns about the Project. By this notice, we are formally announcing our intent to prepare an EIS and request additional agency and public comments to help us focus the analysis in the EIS on the potentially significant environmental issues related to the proposed action. If you provide comments at a scoping meeting, you do not need to resubmit the same comments in response to this notice. Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; affected and potentially affected landowners; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. A 45-day comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all timely comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. The comment period on the draft EIS will be coordinated, to the extent possible, with other jurisdictional agencies. Currently Identified Environmental Issues The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project. We have already identified a number of issues and alternatives that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities, and the environmental information provided by SCE. This preliminary list of issues and alternatives may be changed based on your comments and our additional analysis. • Geology and Soils: ○ Erosion and sedimentation control. ○ Assessment of invasive weed control plans. ○ Right-of-way restoration. • Water Resources: ○ Effect of transmission line crossings on perennial and intermittent waterbodies, including the Colorado River. ○ Assessment of alternative waterbody crossing methods. • Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation: ○ Effect on coldwater and sensitive fisheries. ○ Effect on wildlife resources and their habitat. ○ Effect on birds. • Special Status Species: ○ Potential effect on federally listed species. ○ Potential effect on state-listed sensitive species. ○ Potential effect on Big Horn sheep. • Cultural Resources: ○ Potential effect on historic and prehistoric sites. ○ Native American and tribal concerns. • Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources: ○ Impacts on recreational and residential areas. ○ Visual impacts. • Socioeconomics: ○ Effects on transportation and traffic. ○ Effects of construction workforce demands on public services and temporary housing. • Air Quality and Noise: ○ Effects on the local air quality and noise environment from construction and operation of the proposed facilities. • Reliability and Safety: ○ Assessment of hazards associated with electric transmission lines. • Alternatives: ○ Assessment of alternative configurations and alternative routes to reduce or avoid environmental impacts. ○ Assessment of alternative substation locations. • Cumulative Impact: ○ Assessment of the effect of the proposed Project when combined with other past, present, or future actions in the same region. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about SCE's proposal. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in our EIS and considered during the NEPA review. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen the environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To expedite our receipt and consideration of your comments, the Commission strongly encourages electronic submission of any comments on this Project. See Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the link to “Documents and Filings” and “eFiling.” eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “Sign up” or “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.” In addition, there is a “Quick Comment” option available, which is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf* . Quick Comment does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified docket or project number(s). The Docket Number for the DPV2 Project is PT08-1-000. Your comments must be submitted electronically by August 1, 2008. If you wish to mail comments, please mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before August 1, 2008 and carefully follow these instructions: Send an original and two copies of your letter to: • Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426; • Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/EIPG; and • Reference Docket No. PT08-1-000 on the original and both copies. Once SCE formally files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission. Two public scoping meetings have been scheduled in the Project area to provide another opportunity to offer comments on the proposed Project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of the meetings will be generated so that your comments will be accurately recorded. Meetings will be held at the following locations: Date Location July 8, 2008 (7-10 pm) Quartzsite Elementary School, 930 W. Quail Trail, Quartzsite, AZ 85346, Tel:
(928)927-5500. July 9, 2008 (7-10 pm) Best Western Central Phoenix Inn, 1100 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Tel:
(602)252-2100. Environmental Mailing List Everyone who responds to this notice or provides comments throughout the EIS process will be retained on the mailing list. If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to stay informed and receive copies of the draft and final EISs, you must return the Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix 3). If you do not send comments or return the Mailing List Retention Form asking to remain on the mailing list, you will be taken off the mailing list. Availability of Additional Information Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC 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 ( *i.e.* , PT08-1). 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 on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as Orders, notices, and rule makings. In addition, the FERC offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.* Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at *http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx* along with other related information. To request additional information on the proposed Project or to provide comments directly to the Project sponsor, you can contact SCE by calling toll free at 1-866-602-3782. Also, SCE has established an Internet Web site at *http://www.sce.com/dpv2.* The Web site includes a description of the Project, an overview map of the proposed electric transmission route, and links to related documents. SCE will update the Web site as the environmental review of its Project proceeds. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14284 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 11291-023-IN] Star Mill, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment June 17, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the proposed termination of license by implied surrender for the Star Milling and Electric Minor Water Power Project, located on the Fawn River in La Grange County, Indiana, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-11291) 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 1-866-208-3372, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. Any comments should be filed by July 17, 2008, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project name and project number (P-11291) on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via 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 under the “eFiling” link. For further information, contact Jon Cofrancesco at
(202)502-8951. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14285 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-8368-5] Access to Confidential Business Information by Midwest Research Institute AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, Midwest Research Institute
(MRI)of Kansas City, MO, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than July 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8257; fax number:
(202)564-8251; e-mail address: *sherlock.scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Notice Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to you if are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket's index available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the **“Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is the Agency Taking? Under Contract Number GS-10F-0127J, contractor MRI of 425 Volker Boulevard, Kansas City, MO will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT)in the review of test protocols, plans, reports and supporting data submitted under Dioxin/Furan test rule under 40 CFR part 766. The contractor will also assist in arranging expert panel teleconferences, handling minutes from those teleconferences, and distributing reviews and information. In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under Contract Number GS-10F-0127J, MRI will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under section 4 of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. MRI personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under section 4 of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI. EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under section 4 of TSCA that EPA may provide MRI access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Region VII Headquarters in Kansas City, Kansas. MRI will be authorized access to TSCA CBI at EPA Region VII Headquarters under the EPA *TSCA CBI Protection Manual* . Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until April 30, 2010. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice. MRI personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI. List of Subjects Environmental Protection, Confidential Business Information. Dated: June 6, 2008. Brion Cook, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. E8-13878 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0027, FRL-8685-2] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility Rule (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1973.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0241 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. This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0027, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *ow-docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, State and Regional Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-5627; e-mail address: *letnes.amelia@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 March 28, 2008 (73 FR 16,669), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0027, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *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:* Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility Rule (Renewal). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR Number: 1973.04, OMB Control No. 2040-0241. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The section 316(b) New Facility Rule requires the collection of information from new facilities that use a Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS). Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)requires that any standard established under section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction and capacity of CWISs at that facility reflect the best technology available
(BTA)for minimizing adverse environmental impact. (See 66 FR 65256.) Such impact occurs as a result of impingement (where fish and other aquatic life are trapped on technologies at the entrance to cooling water intake structures) and entrainment (where aquatic organisms, eggs, and larvae are taken into the cooling system, passed through the heat exchanger, and then pumped back out with the discharge from the facility). The rule establishes standard requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities. These requirements seek to minimize the adverse environmental impact associated with the use of CWISs. *Burden Statement:* The annual average reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the section 316(b) New Facility Rule is estimated to be 1,885 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 113,084 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 60 facilities). The Director reporting and recordkeeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 111 hours per respondent (i.e., an annual average of 5,125 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 46 States on average per year). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 60 facilities and 46 States and Territories. *Frequency of response:* Annual, every 5 years. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 5.3 for facilities and 6.1 for States and Territories. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 118,209 (113,084 for facilities and 5,125 for States and Territories). *Estimated total annual costs:* $8.5 million per year. This includes an estimated burden cost of $6.7 million and an estimated cost of approximately $1.8 million for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. *Changes in the estimates:* There is an increase of 41,941 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to the addition of the newly built facilities, as well as the continued performance of annual activities by facilities that received their permit during the first ICR approval period. In addition, this ICR includes additional repermitting burdens and costs which were not in the first renewal ICR because not all of the new facilities required repermitting during the first renewal ICR. Dated: June 19, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-14417 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0698; FRL-8352-3] Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target Housing; State of Colorado Authorization Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for comments and opportunity for public hearing. SUMMARY: On June 29, 2007, EPA received an application from the State of Colorado requesting authorization to administer a program in accordance with section 406(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This program ensures that owners and occupants of target housing are provided information concerning potential hazards of lead-based paint
(LBP)exposure before certain renovations are begun on that housing. In addition to providing general information on the health hazards associated with exposure to lead, the lead hazard information pamphlet advises owners and occupants to take appropriate precautions to avoid exposure to lead-contaminated dust and LBP debris that are sometimes generated during renovations. EPA believes that distribution of the pamphlet will help to reduce the exposures that cause serious lead poisonings, especially in children under age 6, who are particularly susceptible to the hazards of lead. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2008. In addition, a public hearing request may be submitted on or before July 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit all written comments and/or requests for a public hearing identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0698, by one of the following methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0698. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. • *Instructions* : Direct your comments to Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0689. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* , or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* , website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *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 the 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 docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301, Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Hasty, Pollution Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics Program (P3T), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number:
(303)312-6966; e-mail address: *hasty.amanda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may potentially be affected by this action if you perform renovations of target housing for compensation in the State of Colorado. Target housing is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 40 CFR 745.103) as any housing constructed prior to 1978. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Renovators (North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 236116, 236118), e.g., general building contractors/operative builders, renovation firms, individual contractors, and special trade contractors like carpenters, painters, drywall workers and lathers, “home improvement” contractors. • Multi-family housing owners/managers (NAICS codes 531311, 531110), e.g., property management firms and some landlords. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.82. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through *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 CD ROM or disk 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 document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). - Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number. - Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. - Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. - If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. - Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. - Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. - Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? The State of Colorado has provided a self-certification letter stating that its pre-renovation notification program meets the requirements for authorization of a state program under section 404 of TSCA and has requested approval of the Colorado pre-renovation notification program. Therefore, pursuant to section 404 of TSCA, the program is deemed authorized as of the date of submission, June 29, 2007. If EPA subsequently finds that the program does not meet all the requirements for approval of a state program, EPA will work with the state to correct any deficiencies in order to approve the program. If the deficiencies are not corrected, a notice of disapproval will be issued in the **Federal Register** and a Federal program will be implemented in the state. Pursuant to section 404(b) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2684(b)), EPA provides notice and an opportunity for a public hearing on a state or tribal program application before approving the application. Therefore, by this notice EPA is soliciting public comment on whether the state of Colorado application meets the requirements for EPA approval. This notice also provides an opportunity to request a public hearing on the application. If a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will issue a **Federal Register** notice announcing the date, time, and place of the hearing. EPA's final decision on the application will be published in the **Federal Register** . B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? On October 28, 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, became law. Title X of that statute was the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. That Act amended TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 *et seq* .) by adding Title IV (15 U.S.C. 2681-2692), titled *Lead Exposure Reduction* . Section 402 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2682) authorizes and directs EPA to promulgate final regulations governing Lead-Based Paint
(LBP)activities in target housing, public and commercial buildings, bridges and other structures. Those regulations are to ensure that individuals engaged in such activities are properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that individuals engaged in these activities are certified and follow documented work practice standards. Under section 404 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2684), a state may seek authorization from EPA to administer and enforce its own lead-based paint activities program. In the **Federal Register** of August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45777) (FRL-5389-9), EPA promulgated final TSCA section 402/404 regulations governing LBP activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities (a subset of public buildings). Those regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 745, and allow both states and Indian tribes to apply for program authorization. Pursuant to section 404(h) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2684(h)), EPA was authorized to establish the Federal program in any state or tribal nation without its own authorized program in place by August 31, 1998. States and tribes that choose to apply for program authorization must submit a complete application to the appropriate regional EPA office for review. Those applications will be reviewed by EPA within 180 days of receipt of the complete application. To receive EPA approval, a state or tribe must demonstrate that its program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program, and provides for adequate enforcement (section 404(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2684(b)). EPA's regulations (40 CFR part 745, subpart Q) provide the detailed requirements a state or tribal program must meet in order to obtain EPA approval. A state may choose to certify that its lead-based paint activities program (40 CFR part 745, subpart L) and/or pre-renovation notification program (40 CFR part 745, subpart E) meets the requirements for EPA approval, by submitting a letter signed by the Governor or Attorney General stating that the program meets the requirements of section 404(b) of TSCA. Upon submission of such certification letter, the program is deemed authorized (15 U.S.C. 2684(a)). This authorization becomes ineffective, however, if EPA disapproves the application or withdraws the program authorization. III. State Program Description Summary The following is a program description summary provided by the State of Colorado. *5.1.1* Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute, section 25-7-1104(2), the Division may delegate the implementation or enforcement of standards under Title 25, Part 11, C.R.S., to local health or building departments, as appropriate, if requested by such a local department. If the Division approves such a delegation to a local health or building department, the Division shall be the primary agency responsible for overseeing and coordinating administration and enforcement of the program and Mr. Steven D. Fine shall serve as the primary contact with EPA (40 CFR 745.324(b)(1)(ii)). *5.1.2* At this time, there is no delegation to any local health or building department; therefore, the Division has not developed a description of the functions to be performed by each agency. If the Division ever performs such a delegation, it will submit to EPA the required information as detailed in 40 CFR 745.324(b)(1)(iii). *5.2* Information necessary to demonstrate that the proposed regulation No. 19 is at least as protective as the Federal Program (40 CFR 745.324(b)(2)). *5.2.1* Description demonstrating program contains all elements specified in 40 CFR 745.326. *5.2.1.1* Procedures and requirements for the distribution of lead hazard information to owners and occupants of target housing before renovations for compensation (40 CFR 745.325(a)(1)). Regulation No. 19, Part B, includes standards and procedures for the distribution of lead hazard information to owners and occupants of target housing before renovations for compensation. These standards and procedures include: - Clear standards for identifying home improvement activities that trigger the pamphlet distribution requirements at Regulation No. 19, Part B, Section I, Scope and Applicability and Section II.E. (40 CFR 745.326(b)(1)). - Procedures for distributing the lead hazard information to owners and occupants of the housing prior to renovation activities requirements at Regulation No. 19, Part B, Section III., Information Distribution Requirements (40 CFR 745.326(b)(2)). *5.2.1.2* An approved lead hazard information pamphlet meeting the requirements of section 406 of TSCA, as determined by EPA (40 CFR 745.325(a)(2)). For distribution of a lead hazard information pamphlet, Regulation No. 19, Part B, has a definition of pamphlet, like the EPA definition of pamphlet, which requires either: - The lead hazard information pamphlet developed by EPA under section 406(a) of TSCA, titled *Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home* at Regulation Number 19, Part B, Section II.D. (40 CFR 745.326(c)(1)); or - An alternate pamphlet or package of lead hazard information that has been submitted by the State or Tribe, reviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA for use in that State or Tribe. Such information must meet the content requirements prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA, and be in a format that is readable to the diverse audience of housing owners and occupants in that State or Tribe at Regulation No. 19, Sections II.D. (40 CFR 745.326(c)(2)). *5.3* Analysis of Regulation No. 19, Part B Compared to Federal Program in 40 CFR part 745, subpart E. The following analysis demonstrates that the State of Colorado's program is at least as protective as the elements of the Federal program. *5.3.1* Purpose of the proposed regulation. The purpose of the Pre-Renovation Education in Target Housing Regulation Number 19, Part B, is to reduce exposure to lead hazards that may result from renovation activities conducted in “target housing,” including dwelling units and common areas. Regulation Number 19, Part B, will not regulate activities in public or commercial buildings. Regulation Number 19, Part B, includes provisions to establish requirements for certain persons who perform renovations of target housing for compensation to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to the owner and occupant of such housing prior to commencing the renovation. *5.3.2* Program elements. The Division has followed EPA's regulation at 40 CFR part 745 and the State Legislature's statutory requirements to develop Regulation Number 19, Part B, to be both consistent with the federal program and acceptable to EPA. Implementation of Regulation Number 19, Part B, is an appropriate step to continuing to prevent exposing children to lead hazards that may result from certain renovation activities in “target housing.” The scope and applicability of Regulation Number 19, Part B, (Section I., Scope and Applicability) has the same meaning as the scope and applicability of EPA's program (40 CFR 745.82). Regulation Number 19, Part B, includes or incorporates definitions (Section II, Definitions) that are nearly identical to EPA's program (40 CFR 745.83). This includes the clear requirement that the information must meet the requirements of TSCA 406(a) or be approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 745.326. The information distribution requirements provided by Regulation Number 19, Part B, (Section III., Information Distribution Requirements) are nearly identical to EPA's (40 CFR 745.85). The information distribution requirements of Regulation Number 19, Part B, include renovations in dwelling units (section III.A.), renovation in common areas (Section III.B.), and written acknowledgements (Section III.C.) which correspond almost word for word to EPA requirements (40 CFR 745.85(a),
(b)and (c)). Regulation No. 19, Part B, includes recordkeeping requirements (Section IV., Recordkeeping Requirements) designed to match those of the EPA (40 CFR 745.86). Also included in Regulation Number 19, Part B, is sample language for acknowledgement and certification statements (Section V., Acknowledgement and Certification Statements). The sample language in this section was designed to match the clear intent and have the same meaning as EPA program's sample language (40 CFR 745.88). *5.3.3* Conclusion This analysis of substantive program elements demonstrates that Colorado's Pre-Renovation Education in Target Housing Regulation Number 19, Part B, is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal regulations developed pursuant to TSCA section 406. IV. Federal Overfiling Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate, or fail or refuse to comply with, any requirement of an approved State or Tribal program. Therefore, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to comply with, any requirement of an authorized state or tribal program. V. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Lead, Renovation notification, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 27, 2008. Robert E. Roberts, Administrator, Region VIII. [FR Doc. E8-14401 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8685-1] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board Acrylamide Review Panel AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Acrylamide Review Panel to finalize its draft report on its review of EPA's draft “Toxicological Review of Acrylamide”. DATES: A public teleconference of the SAB Acrylamide Review Panel will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) on July 16, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will take place via telephone only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the teleconference may contact Dr. Sue Shallal, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail:
(202)343-9977 or via e-mail at *shallal.suhair@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the EPA SAB Acrylamide Review Panel will hold a public teleconference to finalize their draft report. *Background:* EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD)has requested that the SAB peer review the Agency's draft Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)assessment entitled “Toxicological Review of Acrylamide.” Background on this SAB review, including the process for forming this review panel was provided in a **Federal Register** Notice published on March 29, 2007 (Volume 72 FR 60; 14804-14805). The SAB Panel met on March 11-12, 2008 to review the IRIS document [see **Federal Register** Notice dated February 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 22, Pages 6181-6182)]. The purpose of this upcoming teleconference is for the SAB Panel to discuss and finalize its draft report. Additional information about this advisory activity can be found on the SAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab* . A meeting agenda and the draft SAB review report will be posted at the above noted SAB Web site prior to the meeting. *Availability of Meeting Materials:* The meeting agendas and other materials including the SAB panel's draft report will be available on the SAB Web site at ( *http://www.epa.gov/sab* ) in advance of the meeting. For technical questions and information concerning the EPA's IRIS assessment, please contact Dr. Rob Dewoskin, at
(919)541-1089, or *dewoskin.rob@epa.gov* . *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB Panel to consider throughout the advisory process. *Oral Statements:* In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public SAB teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one-half hour for all speakers. To be placed on the public speaker list, interested parties should contact Dr. Sue Shallal, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), by July 9, 2008. *Written Statements:* Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by July 9, 2008, so that the information may be made available to the SAB for their consideration prior to the teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via e-mail to *shallal.suhair@epa.gov* (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Sue Shallal at
(202)343-9977 or *shallal.suhair@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Shallal preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: June 18, 2008. Vanessa T. Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E8-14402 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0470; FRL-8368-3] Pesticide Products; Registration Applications AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0470, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0470. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although, listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-9525; e-mail address: *benmhend.driss@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Registration Applications EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications. Application Form *File Symbols* : 67702-EA and ET. *Applicant* : Neudorff GmbH KG c/o Walter G. Talarek PC, 1008 Riva Ridge Drive, Great Falls, VA 22066-1620 *Product names* : NEU1173H Concentrate and NEU1173H RTU. *Type of product* : Herbicide. *Active ingredient* : Iron HEDTA (FeHEDTA) at and 26.52% and 1.5% respectively. *Proposal classification/Use* : Household and Commercial use. (D. Benmhend). List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest. Dated: June 13, 2008. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-13877 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0170; FRL-8367-9] Pesticide Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Closure of the Phosalone Registration Review Case AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews. The Agency is also announcing the closure of the phosalone registration review case (0027). Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID)number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the pesticides included in this document, contact the specific Chemical Review Managers for these pesticides as identified in the table in Unit III.A. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Kevin Costello, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-5026; fax number:
(703)305-7070; e-mail address: *costello.kevin@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 3. *Environmental Justice* . EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population. II. Authority EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review published in the **Federal Register** of August 9, 2006, and effective on October 10, 2006 (71 FR 45719) (FRL-8080-4). You may also access the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155 or on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/August/Day-09/p12904.htm* . Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a), a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food. III. Registration Reviews A. What Action is the Agency Taking? As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the Table of this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table. **Table—Registration Review Dockets Opening** Registration Review Case Name and Number Docket ID Number Chemical Review Manager, Telephone Number, E-mail Address Bensulide Case #2035 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0022 Susan Bartow,
(703)603-0065, *bartow.susan@epa.gov* Oxydemeton-methyl Case #0258 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0328 Dana L. Friedman,
(703)347-8827, *friedman.dana@epa.gov* Temephos Case #0006 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0444 Katherine St. Clair,
(703)347-8778, *stclair.katherine@epa.gov* Dicrotophos Case #0145 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440 Rusty Wasem,
(703)305-6979, *wasem.russell@epa.gov* Benszenemethanaminium Case #7625 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0441 Joy Schnackenbeck,
(703)308-8072, *schnackenbeck.joy@epa.gov* Coumaphos Case #0018 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0023 Wilhelmena Livingston,
(703)308-8025, *livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov* Diazinon Case #0238 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0351 Jude Andreasen,
(703)308-9342, *andreasen.jude@epa.gov* Profenofos Case #2540 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0345 Christina Scheltema,
(703)308-2201, *scheltema.christina @epa.gov* Propetamphos Case #2550 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1195 Monica Wait,
(703)347-8019, *wait.monica@epa.gov* Terbufos Case #0109 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0119 Tracy Perry,
(703)308-0128, *perry.tracy@epa.gov* Tetrachlorvinphos Case #0321 EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316 James Parker,
(703)306-0469, *parker.james@epa.gov* The Agency is also announcing the closure of the phosalone registration review case (0027). In October 2006, the Agency issued schedules for upcoming registration reviews and included phosalone as one of the pesticides scheduled for registration review. The Agency opened a docket for the phosalone registration review case on February 19, 2008. Since first identifying phosalone as a Registration Review pesticide, the Agency has determined that there are no current phosalone Section 3 or Section 24(c) registrations. Therefore, the Agency has determined that phosalone is no longer subject to registration review and has closed the phosalone registration review case pursuant to 40 CFR 155.42(c). B. Docket Content 1. *Review dockets* . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: • An overview of the registration review case status. • A list of current product registrations and registrants. • **Federal Register** notices regarding any pending registration actions. • **Federal Register** notices regarding current or pending tolerances. • Risk assessments. • Bibliographies concerning current registrations. • Summaries of incident data. • Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. *Other related information* . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm.* Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review* . 3. *Information submission requirements* . Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review. • As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Bensulide, Oxydemeton-methyl, Temephos, Dicrotophos, Benszenemethanaminium, Coumaphos, Diazinon, Profenofos, Propetamphos, Terbufos, Tetrachlorvinphos, Phosalone Dated: May 29, 2008. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-14238 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0258; FRL-8368-7] Triadimefon; Product Cancellation Order AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellation, voluntarily requested by the registrant and accepted by the Agency, of a product containing the pesticide triadimefon, pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This cancellation order follows an April 16, 2008 **Federal Register** Notice of Receipt of Request from the triadimefon registrant to voluntarily cancel its triadimefon product registration 432-1294. This is not the last triadimefon product registered for use in the United States. In the April 16, 2008 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellation, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of this request, or unless the registrant withdrew its request within this period. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrant did not withdraw its request. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellation. Any distribution, sale, or use of the triadimefon products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions. DATES: The cancellations are effective June 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8195; fax number:
(703)305-5290; e-mail address: *pates.john@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0258. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the **Federal Register** listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by the registrant, of a certain triadimefon product registered under section 3 of FIFRA. The product is listed by registration number in Table 1of this unit. **Table 1.—Triadimefon Product Cancellation** EPA Registration Number Product Name 432-1294 Bayleton 50 Turf and Ornamental Fungicide in WSP and Bayleton 50 WP Fungicide Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the product in Table 1 of this unit by EPA company number. **Table 2.—Registrant of the Canceled Triadimefon Product** EPA Company Number Company Name and Address 432 Bayer Environmental Science 2 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the April 16, 2008 **Federal Register** notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the request for voluntary cancellation of triadimefon. IV. Cancellation Order Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellation of the triadimefon registration identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the triadimefon product registration identified in Table 1 of Unit II. is hereby canceled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the product identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be considered a violation of FIFRA. V. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the **Federal Register** . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request. VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Typically, the Agency will permit a registrant to sell and distribute existing stocks for one year after the date the cancellation request was received. Such policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as set forth in the **Federal Register** of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-3846-4). However, in this case, because Bayer Environmental Science has provided information to the Agency that it is not likely that any remaining existing stocks are out in the channels of trade, the Agency does not believe that there is a need to permit the registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for a period of one year. In addition, the Agency does not believe that there is a need for persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of canceled products. The Agency believes that end users have had sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks. Therefore, the last date for end use of the product is effective on the date of publication of this cancellation order in the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), the Agency hereby approves the requested cancellation of Bayleton 50 Turf and Ornamental Fungicide in WSP and Bayleton 50 WP Fungicide (EPA Registration # 432-1294). List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: June 17, 2008. Steven Bradbury, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E8-14113 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested June 18, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before July 25, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov* or *PRA@fcc.gov* . To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* ,
(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-1086. *Title:* Section 74.786, Digital Channel Assignments; Section 74.787, Digital Licensing; Section 74.790, Permissible Service of Digital TV Translator and LPTV Stations; Section 74.794, Digital Emissions; Section 74.796, Modification of Digital Transmission Systems and Analog Transmission Systems for Digital Operation. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 8,433 respondents; 34,660 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.5-4 hours. *Frequency of Response:* One-time reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained at 47 U.S.C. 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 55,417 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $95,734,200. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR Section 74.786(d) requires that digital LPTV and TV translator stations assigned to these channels as a companion digital channel demonstrate that a suitable in-core channel is not available. The demonstration will require that the licensee conduct a study to verify that an in-core channel is not available. 47 CFR Section 74.786(d) further requires that digital LPTV and TV translator stations proposing use of channels 52-59 notify all potentially affected 700 MHz wireless licensees of their proposed operation not less than 30 days prior to the submission of their application. These applicants must notify wireless licensees of the 700 MHz bands comprising the same TV channel and the adjacent channel within who licensed geographic boundaries the digital LPTV or TV translator station is proposed to be located, and they must also notify licensees of co-channel6 and adjacent channel spectrum whose service boundaries lie within 75 miles and 50 miles, respectively, of their proposed station location. 47 CFR Section 74.786(e) allows assignment of UHF channels 60 to 69 to digital LPTV or TV translator stations for use as a digital conversion channel provided that stations proposing use of these channels notify all potentially affected 700 MHz wireless licensees of their proposed operation not later than 30 days prior to the submission of their application. 47 CFR Section 74.786(e) further provides that digital LPTV and TV translator stations proposing use of UHF channel 63, 64, 68, and 69 (public safety frequencies) as a digital conversion channel must secure a coordinated spectrum use agreement with the pertinent 700 MHz public safety regional planning committee and state administrator prior to the submission of their application. 47 CFR Section 74.786(e) Digital LPTV and TV translator stations proposing use of channels 62, 65, and 67 must notify the pertinent regional planning committee and state administrator of their proposed operation not later than 30 days prior to submission of their application. 47 CFR Section 74.787(a)(2)(iii) provides that mutually exclusive LPTV and TV translator applicants for companion digital stations will be afforded an opportunity to submit in writing to the Commission, settlements and engineering solutions to resolve their situation. 47 CFR Section 74.787(a)(3) provides that mutually exclusive applicants applying for construction permits for new digital stations and for major changes to existing stations in the LPTV service will similarly be allowed to *submit* in writing to the Commission, settlements and engineering solutions to rectify the problem. 47 CFR Section 74.787(a)(4) provides that mutually exclusive displacement relief applicants filing applications for digital LPTV and TV translator stations may be resolved by submitting settlements and engineering solutions in writing to the Commission. 47 CFR Section 74.790(f) permits digital TV translator stations to originate emergency warnings over the air deemed necessary to protect and safeguard life and property, and to originate local public service announcements
(PSAs)or messages seeking or acknowledging financial support necessary for its continued operation. These announcements or messages shall not exceed 30 seconds each, and be broadcast no more than once per hour. 47 CFR Section 74.790(e) requires that a digital TV translator station shall not retransmit the programs and signal of any TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station(s) without prior written consent of such station(s). A digital TV translator operator electing to multiplex signals must negotiate arrangements and obtain written consent of involved DTV station licensee(s). 47 CFR Section 74.790(g) requires a digital LPTV station who transmits the programming of a TV broadcast or DTV broadcast station received prior written consent of the station whose signal is being transmitted. 47 CFR Section 74.794 mandates that digital LPTV and TV translator stations operating on TV channels 22-24, 32-36, 38, and 65-69 with a digital transmitter not specifically FCC-certificated for the channel purchase and utilize a low pass filter or equivalent device rated by its manufacturer to have an attenuation of at least 85 dB in the GPS band. The licensees must retain with their station license a description of the low pass filter or equivalent device with the manufacturer's rating or a report of measurements by a qualified individual. 47 CFR Section 74.796(b)(5) requires digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer-provided modification kit would need to purchase the kit and must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications, hi addition, a digital LPTV or TV translator station licensees that modify their existing transmitter and do not use a manufacturer-provided modification kit, but instead perform custom modification (those not related to installation of manufacturer-supplied and FCC-certified equipment) must notify the Commission upon completion of the transmitter modifications and shall certify compliance with all applicable transmission system requirements. 47 CFR Section 74.796(b)(6) provides that operators who modify their existing transmitter by use of a manufacturer-provided modification kit must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the nature of the modifications, installation and test instructions, and other material provided by the manufacturer, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission. In addition, digital LPTV and TV translator operators who custom modify their transmitter must maintain with the station's records for a period of not less than two years, and will make available to the Commission upon request, a description of the modifications performed and performance tests, the results of performance-tests and measurements on the modified transmitter, and copies of related correspondence with the Commission. In situations where protection of an existing analog LPTV or translator station without a frequency offset prevents acceptance of a proposed new or modified LPTV, TV translator, or Class A station, the Commission requires that the existing non-offset station install at its expense offset equipment and notify the Commission that it has done so, or, alternatively, negotiate an interference agreement with the new station and notify the Commission of that agreement. The Commission requires that wireless licensees operating on channels 52-59 and 60-69 notify (by certified mail, return receipt requested) a digital LPTV or TV translator licensee operating on the same channel or first adjacent channel of its intention to initiate or change wireless operations and the likelihood of interference from the LPTV or translator station within its licensed geographic service area. This notification should describe the facilities, associated service area, and operation of the wireless licensee with sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of the likelihood of interference. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14356 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-1183] Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau gives notice of Mr. William Holman's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Holman, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request. DATES: Opposition requests must be received by July 25, 2008. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 25, 2008, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at
(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enforcement Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111. Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 08-1183, which was mailed to Mr. Holman and released on May 19, 2008. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying center during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying center during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . Federal Communications Commission. Hillary DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The attached is the Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Letter to Mr. William Holman. May 19, 2008. DA 08-1183 Via certified mail. Return receipt requested and facsimile (415-773-5759). Mr. William Holman, c/o Melinda Haag, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2669. Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-08-IH-1142 Dear Mr. Holman: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction of bid rigging, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1, in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your guilty plea and subsequent conviction of bid rigging. *See United States* v. *William Holman* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB-012, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed Apr. 9, 2008 and entered Apr. 9, 2008) (“Holman Judgment”), Substitute Information (N.D.Cal. filed and entered Apr. 5, 2007) (“Holman Substitute Information”). *See also generally United States* v. *Video Network Communications, Inc. et al.* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB, Superseding Indictment (N.D.Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2005 and entered Dec. 12, 2005), *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213600/213626.htm* (accessed May 1, 2008) (“ *VNCI Superseding Indictment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.8; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). The Commission adopted debarment rules for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in 2003. *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism* , Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202
(2003)(“ *Second Report and Order* ”) (adopting section 54.521 to suspend and debar parties from the E-rate program). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all of the Federal universal service support mechanisms. *Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.* , Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12
(2007)( *Program Management Order* ) (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (3), (e)(4), and (g)). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 You pled guilty to bid rigging in connection with your participation in the Ceria Travis Academy E-Rate project (the “Project”). 4 Specifically, you admitted that, as former vice president of sales for NEC Business Networks, Inc. (“NEC-BNS”), you entered into and engaged in a conspiracy with NEC-BNS and other co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition by submitting non-competitive bids for the Project and taking steps to ensure that the Project was awarded to NEC-BNS and co-conspirators. 5 3 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 66; *Program Management Order* , 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however, organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6). 4 *See Holman Judgment* at 1; *Holman Substitute Information* at 4. 5 *See id.* The Commission debarred NEC-BNS in 2006 for the company's wire fraud and bid rigging conviction. *See NEC Business Network Solutions, Inc.* , Notice to Debarment, 21 FCC Rcd 7491 (2006); 71 FR 42398 (2006). The following four individuals, who were also charged in the *VNCI Superseding Indictment* , have pled guilty or been found guilty, and subsequently sentenced: Judy Green, Earl Nelson, George Marchelos, and Allan Green. We are sending separate notices of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings to these individuals. VNCI is now defunct and charges against the company have been dropped. Pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 6 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 7 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 8 6 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4). *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225-9227, paras. 67-74. 7 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d). 8 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 69; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 9 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 10 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 11 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 12 9 47 CFR 54.8(e)(4). 10 *Id.* 11 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 12 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5), 54.8(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 13 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 13 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 CFR 54.8(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 14 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 15 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 16 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register** . 17 14 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(3). 15 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, para. 74. 16 *See id.* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(5). 17 *Id.* The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 CFR 54.8(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 18 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 19 18 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 67; 47 CFR 54.8(d), 54.8(g). 19 *Id.* Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. cc: Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail). Michael Wood, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-14354 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 08-1182] Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau gives notice of Ms. Judy Green's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against her. Ms. Green, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with her to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request. DATES: Opposition requests must be received by July 25, 2008. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or July 25, 2008, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at
(202)418-0843 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enforcement Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111. Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 08-1182, which was mailed to Ms. Green and released on May 19, 2008. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov* . The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . Federal Communications Commission. Hillary DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. The attached is the Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Letter to Ms. Judy Green. May 19, 2008. DA 08-1182 Via certified mail. Return receipt requested and facsimile (510-452-8405). Ms. Judy Green, c/o Erik G. Babcock, Law Offices of Erik Babcock, 1212 Broadway, Suite 726, Oakland, CA 94612. Re: Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings, File No. EB-08-IH-1139 Dear Ms. Green: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction on multiple counts of fraud, collusion, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1 and 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, and 1343, in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2 1 Any further reference in this letter to “your conviction” refers to your twenty-two count conviction. *United States* v. *Judy Green* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-WHA-007, Judgment (N.D.Cal. filed and entered March 19, 2008) (“ *Judy Green Judgment* ”). 2 47 CFR 54.8; 47 CFR 0.111 (delegating to the Enforcement Bureau authority to resolve universal service suspension and debarment proceedings). The Commission adopted debarment rules for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism in 2003. *See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism* , Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202
(2003)(“ *Second Report and Order* ”) (adopting section 54.521 to suspend and debar parties from the E-rate program). In 2007, the Commission extended the debarment rules to apply to all of the Federal universal service support mechanisms. *Comprehensive Review of the Universal Service Fund Management, Administration, and Oversight; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; Lifeline and Link Up; Changes to the Board of Directors for the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 16372, 16410-12
(2007)(Program Management Order)* (renumbering section 54.521 of the universal service debarment rules as section 54.8 and amending subsections (a)(1), (5), (c), (d), (e)(2)(i), (3), (e)(4), and (g)). I. Notice of Suspension The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 On March 19, 2008, the United States District Court in San Francisco sentenced you to serve seven and a half years in prison following your conviction of twenty-two counts of fraud, collusion, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy in connection with your leadership of multiple schemes to defraud the E-Rate program. 4 As a former education consultant and sales representative for the companies Video Network Communications, Inc. (“VNCI”) and ADJ Consultants, Inc. (“ADJ”), you orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes and conspiracies involving more than twenty-five separate E-Rate projects in school districts throughout seven states from 1998 to 2003. 5 The fraudulent schemes involved conspiring with various individuals and businesses for the purpose of engaging in conduct in restraint of competition by submitting collusive, noncompetitive, or rigged bids for telecommunications services eligible for E-Rate subsidies and ensuring telecommunications services contracts were awarded to conspirators and bids from non-conspirators were disqualified. 6 The schemes also involved inflating the costs of eligible equipment and services in applications for funding submitted to Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) in order to pay for ineligible equipment and services and by misrepresenting schools' ability and willingness to pay for their portion of the school projects. 7 3 *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, 66; *Program Management Order* , 22 FCC Rcd at 16387, para. 32. The Commission's debarment rules define a “person” as “[a]ny individual, group of individuals, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however, organized.” 47 CFR 54.8(a)(6). 4 *See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/March/08_at_219.html* (accessed Apr. 22, 2008) (“DOJ March 19, *2008 Judy Green Press Release”); Judy Green Judgment* at 1. 5 *See United States* v. *Video Network Communications, Inc. et al.* , Criminal Docket No. 3:05-CR-00208-CRB, Superseding Indictment at 5, 15 (N.D.Cal.filed Dec. 8, 2005 and entered Dec. 12, 2005) also available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f213600/213626.htm* (accessed May 1, 2008) (“ *VNCI Superseding Indictment”); see also DOJ March 19, 2008 Judy Green Press Release* . The following four individuals, who were also charged in the *VNCI Superseding Indictment* , have pled guilty and subsequently have been sentenced: Earl Nelson, George Marchelos, William Holman and Allan Green. We are sending separate notices of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings to these individuals. VNCI and ADJ are now defunct; charges against these companies have been dropped. 6 *See VNCI Superceding Indictment* at paras. 79-151; *DOJ March 19, 2008 Judy Green Press Release* at 1. 7 *See VNCI Superceding Indictment* at 12-78; *DOJ March 19, 2008 Judy Green Press Release* at 1. Pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 8 your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries fund mechanism, including the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries fund mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 9 Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . 10 8 47 CFR 54.8(a)(4). *See Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9225-9227, paras. 67-74. 9 47 CFR 54.8(a)(1), (d). 10 *Second Report and Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 69; 47 CFR 54.8(e)(1). Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the **Federal Register** , whichever comes first. 11 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 12 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 13 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 14 11 47 *CFR* 54.8(e)(4). 12 *Id.* 13 47 *CFR* 54.8(e)(5). 14 See Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 *CFR* 54.8(e)(5), 54.8(f). II. Initiation of Debarment Proceedings Your conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 15 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 15 “Causes for suspension and debarment are the conviction of or civil judgment for attempt or commission of criminal fraud, theft, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstruction of justice and other fraud or criminal offense arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism, the high-cost support mechanism, the rural healthcare support mechanism, and the low-income support mechanism.” 47 *CFR* 54.8(c). Such activities “include the receipt of funds or discounted services through [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding [the Federal universal service] support mechanisms.” 47 *CFR* 54.8(a)(1). As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the **Federal Register** . 16 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 17 Within 90 days of receipt of any opposition to your suspension and proposed debarment, the Bureau, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, will provide you with notice of its decision to debar. 18 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the **Federal Register.** 19 16 *See Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, paras. 70; 47 *CFR* 54.8(e)(3). 17 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9227, para. 74. 18 *See id.,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9226, para. 70; 47 *CFR* 54.8(e)(5). 19 Id. The Commission may reverse a debarment, or may limit the scope or period of debarment upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances, following the filing of a petition by you or an interested party or upon motion by the Commission. 47 *CFR* 54.8(f). If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for at least three years from the date of debarment. 20 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 21 20 *Second Report and Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 9225, para. 67; 47 *CFR* 54.8(d), 54.8(g). 21 Id. Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to *diana.lee@fcc.gov* and to *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 or by e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov.* If Ms. Lee is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at
(202)418-1420 and by e-mail at *vickie.robinson@fcc.gov.* Sincerely yours, Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. cc: Kristy Carroll, Esq., Universal Service Administrative Company (via e-mail). Michael Wood, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice (via mail). [FR Doc. E8-14360 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.fmc.gov* ) or contacting the Office of Agreements
(202)523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* . *Agreement No.:* 011741-012. *Title:* U.S. Pacific Coast-Oceania Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Hamburg-Süd; and Hapag-Lloyd AG. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment adds CMA CGM, S.A. and ANL Singapore PTE Ltd. as parties to the agreement. It also makes various other changes to accommodate the foregoing carriers' participation in the agreement. Dated: June 20, 2008. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14410 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Sea Lion Holdings, Ltd. dba Sea Lion Shipping, Ltd., 614 Progress Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07201, Officer: Richard Forte, President (Qualifying Individual), LCL Logistix (India) Pvt. dba LCL Lines, Building B, Plaza Hill 215, Rte. 18 North, East Brunswick, NJ 08816, Officers: Unnikrishnan Nair, President (Qualifying Individual), Jaya Unnikrishnan Nair, Director. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant World Express Shipping Transportation & Forwarding Services, Inc. dba Westainer, Lines dba West Forwarding Services, 17851 Jefferson Park Road, Ste. 101, Middleburg Hts., OH 44130, Officer: Brian C. Buckholz, President/CEO (Qualifying Individual). Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Penbroke Marine Services Inc., 975 E. Linden Ave., Linden, NJ 07036, Officers: Brian J. Brennan, President, Gloria Murphy, Secretary (Qualifying Individuals). Fredonia, Inc., 531 W. Roosevelt Road, Wheaton, IL 60187, Officer: Peter Terkildsen, President (Qualifying Individual). Dated: June 20, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14390 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 18, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. Pinnacle Capital Corporation* , to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Pinnacle Bank, both of Marshalltown, Iowa. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 19, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-14308 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Member Conflict Review and R03 Application Review Meeting, Program Announcement
(PA)07-318 In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)announces the aforementioned meeting. *Time and Date:* 8 a.m.-5 p.m., July 17, 2008 (Closed). *Place:* Marriott Waterfront Hotel, 700 Aliceanna Street, Baltimore, MD 21202. *Status:* The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)
(4)and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. *Matters To Be Discussed:* The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of Member Conflict Review and R03 Application Review Meeting, PA 07-318. *Contact Person for More Information:* Stephen Olenchock, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Coordination and Special Projects, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505, Telephone
(304)285-6271. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 18, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-14313 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Application Requirements for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Model Plan. *OMB No.:* 0970-0075. *Description:* States, including the District of Columbia, Tribes, tribal organizations and territories applying for LIHEAP block grant funds must submit an annual application (Model Plan) that meets the LIHEAP statutory and regulatory requirements prior to receiving Federal funds. A detailed application must be submitted every 3 years. Abbreviated applications may be submitted in alternate years. There have been no changes in the Model Plan. *Respondents:* State Governments, Tribal Governments, Insular Areas, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Detailed Model Plan 65 1 1 65 Abbreviated Model Plan 115 1 .33 38 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours 103 *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: June 18, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14219 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects *Title:* Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative Grantee Implementation Evaluation. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in partnership with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing an information collection activity as part of the Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative
(HHMI)Grantee Implementation Evaluation study. The proposed information collection consists of two components:
(1)semistructured interviews with key respondents involved with selected marriage education programs serving Hispanic couples and individuals; and
(2)focus groups with Hispanic individuals and couples participating in selected marriage education programs or declining to participate in such programs. Through this information collection and other study activities, ACF and ASPE seek to identify the unique cultural needs of Hispanic couples and families that have implications for the design and delivery of healthy marriage education services to Hispanics, recognizing their diversity with respect to country of origin, language, and level of acculturation, among other factors. *Respondents:* Marriage education program directors and managers; staff responsible for outreach, recruitment and intake activities in marriage education programs; marriage education instructors; key persons in partner organizations; and Hispanic individuals and couples. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Program Staff Discussion Guide 81 1 2 162 Partners/Community Leaders Discussion Guide 54 1 2 108 Participant Focus Group Discussion Guide 180 1 1 180 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 450 In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enf ant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: June 18, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14220 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Project *Title:* Evaluation of Pregnancy Prevention Approaches—Phase 1. *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the Evaluation of Pregnancy Prevention Approaches study. This study will assess the effectiveness of a range of programs designed to prevent or reduce sexual risk behavior and pregnancy among older adolescents. Knowing what types of programs are effective will enhance programmatic decisions by policymakers and practitioners. The proposed activity involves the collection of information from observations of program activities and interviews with a range of experts about various aspects of existing prevention programs and topics the experts view as important to address through evaluation. These data will be used to help enhance decisions about the types of programs to be evaluated in the study. *Respondents:* Researchers and policy experts, program directors, program staff, or school administrators. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Annual number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Estimated annual burden hours Discussion Guide for Use with Researchers and Policy Experts 100 1 1 100 Discussion Guide for Use with Program Directors 50 1 1 50 Discussion Guide for Use with Program Staff 100 1 1 100 Discussion Guide for Use with School Administrators 50 1 1 50 Activity Observation Guide 50 1 .75 38 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 338 In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *OPREinfocollection@acf.hhs.gov* . All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. The Department specifically requests comments on
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication. Dated: June 18, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14221 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Proposed Projects *Title:* Evaluation of the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Implementation Study. *OMB No.:* 0970-0283. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is conducting a demonstration and evaluation called the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI). Demonstration programs have been funded through Child Support Enforcement waivers authorized under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to support healthy marriage, improve child well-being and increase the financial security of children. The objective of the evaluation is to:
(1)Assess the implementation of community interventions designed to provide marriage education by examining the way the projects operate and by examining child support outcomes among low-income families in the community; and
(2)evaluate the community impacts of these interventions on marital stability and satisfaction, child well-being and child support outcomes among low-income families. The purpose of this information collection is to continue to collect implementation data under the protocols previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Approval No. 0970-0283. Primary data for the implementation evaluation will come from observations, interviews, focus groups and records. One-on-one and small group interviews with project staff and marriage education service providers in the community will provide a detailed understanding of the administration and operation of the demonstrations. Focus group discussions will provide insights into participants' perspectives on marriage education and their experiences with the CHMI interventions. In addition to the implementation information collected under this request, an impact evaluation will be integrated with the implementation study and will assess the effects of healthy marriage initiatives by comparing family and child well-being outcomes in the CHMI communities with similar outcomes in comparison communities that are well matched to the project sites. Data from the implementation studies will provide the basis for the instrumental variable models of CHMI impacts to help determine direct or indirect exposure to marriage-related services. Baseline data collected under the impact evaluation has been approved by OMB (See OMB Approval No. 0970-0322). *Respondents:* Lead Project Staff, Service Provider Organization Staff, Key Community, Civic Stakeholders, and Program Participants. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of respondents Average number of responses per respondents Average burden hours per response Total burden hours Administrative interviews 200 2 1 400 Small group interviews 25 1 1.6 40 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 440 *Additional Information:* Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail address: *OPREInfoCollection@acf.hhs.gov* . All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. *OMB Comment:* OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, FAX: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF. Dated: June 18, 2008. Brendan C. Kelly, OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14222 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0207] (formerly Docket No. 2007D-0202) Guidance for Industry: Microbiological Considerations for Antimicrobial Food Additive Submissions; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Guidance for Industry: Microbiological Considerations for Antimicrobial Food Additive Submissions.” The guidance explains FDA's current thinking on a number of microbiological issues unique to the preparation of premarket submissions for antimicrobial food additives. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-436-2972. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1071. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In the **Federal Register** of September 25, 2007 (72 FR 54446), FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Microbiological Considerations for Antimicrobial Food Additive Submissions.” FDA gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on the draft guidance by November 26, 2007. The agency considered the one received comment as it finalized the guidance. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated September 2007. FDA is issuing this guidance document as level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance document represents FDA's current thinking on a number of microbiological issues unique to the preparation of premarket submissions for antimicrobial food additives. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR 70.25, 71.1, 170.35, and 171.1 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0016; the collection of information in 21 CFR 170.39 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0298; and the collection of information in 21 CFR 170.101 and 170.106 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0495. III. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance document and received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only. IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html* . Dated: June 19, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-14397 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS. The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual other conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Board of Scientific Counselors, NIEHS. *Date:* July 20-22, 2008. July 20, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Doubletree Guest Suites, 2515 Meridian Parkway, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713. *Closed:* July 21, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Building 101, Executive Conference Room, 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Open:* July 21, 2008, 9:15 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. *Agenda:* An overview of the organization and research in the Laboratory of Structural Biology. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, South Campus, Conference Rooms 101A-C, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Closed:* July 21, 2008, 11:35 a.m. to 12:25 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, South Campus, Conference Rooms 101A-C, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Open:* July 21, 2008, 1 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. *Agenda:* Poster Session. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences South Campus, Conference Rooms 101A-C Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Closed:* July 21, 2008, 1:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, South Campus, Conference Rooms 101A-C, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Closed:* July 21, 2008, 5:15 p.m. to Adjournment. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Doubletree Guest Suites, 2515 Meridian Parkway, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713. *Closed:* July 22, 2008, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate programmatic and personnel issues. *Place:* Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, South Campus, Conference Rooms 101A-C, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. *Contact Person:* Perry J. Blackshear, PhD, MD, Acting Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, PO Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
(919)541-4899, *black009@niehs.nih.gov* . Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 18, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-14261 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M 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(c4) 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; Member Conflict: Topics in Development, Aging and Global Health. *Date:* July 11, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3:30 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:* Sherry L. Dupere, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5136, MSC 7843, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(301)435-1021, *duperes@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:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Skeletal Muscle and Exercise Physiology. *Date:* July 16, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* John P. Holden, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4211, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8551, *holdenjo@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Reference Epigenome Mapping and Data Analysis and Coordination Centers. *Date:* July 21, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, NW., Zenith, Washington, DC 20037. *Contact Person:* Elena Smirnova, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1236, *smirnove@csr.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project Grant in Cell Biology. *Date:* August 13-14, 2008. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting). *Contact Person:* David Balasundaram, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5189, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1022, *balasundaramd@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 18, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-14262 Filed 6-24-08; 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 Auditory System. *Date:* July 16, 2008. *Time:* 1 p.m. to 4 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 20212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704, *crucew@nia.nih.gov* . This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Proteinopathies in ALS-Dementia. *Date:* July 23, 2008. *Time:* 1:30 p.m. to 5 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* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; DNA Damage, Repair and Aging. *Date:* July 25, 2008. *Time:* 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institute on Aging, Gateway, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20814, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 20212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707, *elainelewis@nia.nih.gov* . *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Aging and Senile Dementia. *Date:* August 7, 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 2c212, Bethesda, MD 20814, (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 18, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-14264 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Proteomics Center for HIV/AIDS and Addiction. *Date:* July 21-22, 2008. *Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. *Contact Person:* Mark Swieter, PhD, Chief, Training and Special Projects Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401,
(301)435-1389, *ms80x@nih.gov* . (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 18, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-14277 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes. The outcome of the evaluation will be a decision whether NIDDK should support the request and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes and its complications. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* Type 1 Diabetes—Rapid Access to Intervention Development Special Emphasis Panel; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. *Date:* July 2, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m.—12 p.m. *Agenda:* To evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes and its complications. *Place:* 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Dr. Myrlelne Staten, Senior Advisor, Diabetes, Translation Research, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5460, 301 402-7886. 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. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 98.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 18, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-14278 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2008-0061] Public Workshop: Implementing Privacy Protections in Government Data Mining AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS. ACTION: Notice announcing public workshop. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office will host a public workshop, *Implementing Privacy Protections in Government Data Mining* . DATES: The two-day workshop will be held on July 24, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and on July 25th, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Written comments should be received on or before July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held in the International Ballroom East, Hilton Washington, 1919 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. Send comments by e-mail to *privacyworkshop@dhs.gov* , by fax to (703)-235-0442, or by mail to Toby Milgrom Levin, Senior Advisor, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. All comments must include the words “Data Mining Workshop” and the Docket Number (DHS-2008-0061). To register for the Workshop, please send an e-mail to *privacyworkshop@dhs.gov* with “Data Mining Workshop Registration” in the subject line, and your name and organizational affiliation in the body of the e-mail. Alternatively, you may call 703-235-0780 to register and provide this information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Milgrom Levin, DHS Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528; by telephone 703-235-0780; by facsimile 703-235-0442; or by e-mail at *privacyworkshop@dhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)Privacy Office is holding a public workshop to bring together leading academic, policy, and technology experts to explore methods of validating the accuracy and effectiveness of data mining models and rules, and the role of anonymization tools and automated audit controls in protecting privacy. The purpose of the workshop is to inform the Privacy Office as it prepares its 2008 report to Congress on DHS data mining activities. 1 The workshop will consist of a series of presentations and panel discussions that include the broad range of stakeholder perspectives. Workshop attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions after each panel. 1 The Department has submitted three prior reports to the Congress on data mining: The 2008 *Letter Report Pursuant to Section 804 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; the 2007 Data Mining Report: DHS Privacy Office Response to House Report 109-699* (July 6, 2007) and the *Data Mining Report: DHS Privacy Office Response to House Report 108-774* (July 6, 2006). These reports are available on the DHS Privacy Office Web site at *http://www.dhs.gov/privacy* . The 2008 *Letter Report* provided a preliminary analysis of DHS data mining activities, with the understanding that a comprehensive report would follow. This workshop is intended to provide context for that comprehensive report. The workshop is open to the public, and no fee is required for attendance. *Topics for Comment:* To develop a comprehensive record regarding privacy protections in government data mining, the DHS Privacy Office also invites interested parties to submit written comments as described below. Comments should be received on or before July 17, 2008, and should be as specific as possible. The Privacy Office is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following topics: 1. How can government data mining activities be carried out in a manner that respects privacy? 2. How do the privacy issues posed by government data mining compare to those posed by other types of data analysis by the government? What are the similarities and differences? Are there privacy issues that are unique to government data mining? 3. What should be the elements of privacy best practices for government data mining? The Privacy Office requests that, where possible, comments include references to literature, technical standards and/or other resources that would support implementation of the best practices identified. 4. What should be the criteria for validating government data mining models and rules? 5. Are anonymization techniques or tools currently available that could be used in conjunction with government data mining? How effective are these techniques or tools? What are their costs and benefits? What degree of de-identification do they make possible? 6. What automated audit controls can be implemented in connection with government data mining? How effective are these controls? What are their costs and benefits? 7. Are there protections other than anonymization and automated audit controls that should be considered in connection with government data mining? How effective are any such protections? What are their costs and benefits? 8. Data quality plays an important role in the ability of government data mining techniques to produce accurate results. What data quality standards should DHS adopt for data mining? 9. What redress mechanisms should be implemented to protect privacy and also preserve the integrity and confidentiality of government investigative activities? Written comments must include the words “Data Mining Workshop” and the Docket Number (DHS-2008-0061), and may be submitted by any one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: privacyworkshop@dhs.gov* . Include “Data Mining Workshop Comment” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 703-235-0442. • *Mail:* Toby Milgrom Levin, Senior Advisor, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. All written comments received will be posted without alteration on the *http://www.dhs.gov/privacy* Web page for this workshop, including any personal contact information provided. *Registration:* In order to assist us in planning for the workshop, we ask that attendees register in advance. To register, please send an e-mail to *privacyworkshop@dhs.gov* with “Data Mining Workshop Registration” in the subject line, and your name and organizational affiliation in the body of the e-mail. Alternatively, you may call 703-235-0780 to register and to provide the DHS Privacy Office with your name and organizational affiliation, if any. The Privacy Office will use this information only for purposes of planning this workshop and to contact you in the event of any logistical changes. An agenda and logistical information will be posted on the workshop Web page shortly before the event. A written transcript will be posted on the Web page following the event. *Special Assistance:* Persons with disabilities who require special assistance should indicate this in their registration request and are encouraged to identify anticipated special needs as early as possible. Dated: June 20, 2008. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14394 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2008-0035] Proposed Expansion of the Cove Point Facility, Cove Point, MD: Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment
(EA)and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed issuance of a Letter of Recommendation
(LOR)on the suitability of the waterway for the expansion of the Cove Point LNG facility for Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, in Cove Point, MD. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, are part of the Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0035 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal Holidays. You may also find this docket on the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, call Lieutenant Commander Rogers Henderson, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1411 or Mr. Ken Smith, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1413. If you have any questions on viewing material on the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the applicant prepared a Final Supplemental EA and the Coast Guard prepared the FONSI for the Proposed Expansion of the Cove Point Facility, Cove Point, MD. Response to Comments The Coast Guard requested comments on the Draft Supplemental EA when the Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental EA was published on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13551). The Coast Guard received nine comments on the draft Supplemental EA. Two commenters agreed with the Coast Guard that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the State of Maryland's environment or historic properties. One commenter stated the current security measures for the facility and during tanker loading/unloading operations are insufficient. The Coast Guard disagrees because the facility is regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act
(MTSA)of 2002 and as a result must comply with a Coast Guard approved Facility Security Plan. Foreign vessels which make LNG deliveries to the terminal must have a valid International Ship Security Certificate on board attesting to the vessel's compliance with the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea and the Ship and Port Facility Security
(ISPS)Code. The ISPS Code is the foreign equivalent to MTSA requirements. In addition, Cove Point has been receiving LNG shipments and operating in compliance with the safety and security provisions and operating restrictions of the Letter of Recommendation
(LOR)issued by the Coast Guard to Cove Point in 2002. One commenter discussed the applicability of the Sandia 2005 risk assessment to the proposed Expansion Project. The Coast Guard disagrees that this is applicable since the Sandia 2005 assessment referenced by the commenter is apparently the Sandia Report SAND2005-7339: “Review of the Independent Risk Assessment of the Proposed Cabrillo Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port project.” This report is not applicable to this proposed project because it addresses a deepwater project with a a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU), and not the waterway for an LNG terminal. Instead, the applicable Sandia report for Cove Point is the 2004 Sandia Report, SAND2004-6258: “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas Spill on Water.” This report identifies three “Zones of Concerns”. The Sandia 2004 report shows the conservative maximum hazard distance is defined as Zone 3, which would occur in the unlikely event of a LNG vapor cloud release but would only create a hazard within a distance of about 2.2 miles from the point of the release. One commenter suggested a major LNG spill would affect the cooling towers of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment since the plant is well outside the furthest potential impact zone, Zone 3, i.e. the distance of 2.2 miles, per the applicable Sandia report. One commenter stated that the air pollutants from LNG tankers, marine escorts, and traffic specifically related to LNG were not addressed since the Maryland Department of the Environment covers only stationary equipment. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. These air pollutants were addressed in the April 2006 FERC FEIS, Appendix H, “General Conformity Determination for the Proposed Cove Point Expansion Project” which the Supplemental EA adopted. The General Conformity Rule, found in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, applies to proposed actions in a nonattainment or maintenance area that are not otherwise regulated under the New Source Review
(NSR)programs or Operating Permit Program. Consequently, the General Conformity Rule applies to direct emissions, such as construction and vessel activity emissions, which are not long-term stationary source operations. As part of the General Conformity Determination, LNG ships and tugs emissions were estimated based on roundtrip operation in state waters. One commenter declared that uncontrolled toxic air pollutants from the proposed project are expected to form toxic particulates matter hazardous to human health. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. As the Supplemental EA and FONSI discuss, we found that there will be no significant adverse impact from the toxic air pollutants and disagreed that these pollutants are uncontrolled. These pollutants are subject to the U.S. EPA Clean Air Act's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP). Under the HAP permitting process, it was established the proposed project's total potential HAP emission rate, 11 tons per year (tpy), was well below the threshold for facilities subject to HAP regulations which is 25 tpy. One commenter expressed concern regarding the volume of ballast water intake from the increase of LNG tankers resulting in an increase of salinity of the Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The volume of water removed by each LNG ship as a percentage of the total amount of the Bay is negligible and would not increase salinity in the Chesapeake Bay. One commenter stated the impact of seawater intake for ballast from the increase in LNG tankers did not address the impact to aquatic organisms. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The potential impacts to the aquatic organisms were addressed in Section 7 of the Supplemental EA. The calculated seawater intake on the LNG vessels is 0.6 feet per second. This velocity is similar to the 0.5 feet per second identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service as minimizing entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. Supplemental Environmental Assessment We prepared a Supplemental EA to identify and examine the reasonable alternatives and assess their potential environmental impacts. The Supplemental EA examined the potential effects associated with the incremental increase in LNG ship traffic within U.S. territorial waters on natural, cultural, and human resources. Our preferred alternative is to issue a LOR with conditions. This action will assure that the waterway is suitable, safe, and environmentally sound for the increased LNG vessel traffic resulting from the Cove Point Expansion Project. This preferred alternative as well as other alternatives are further described in the supplemental EA. The Coast Guard determined the Supplemental EA adequately discusses the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed action. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. Therefore, a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued for the preferred alternative of the proposed action. Dated: June 17, 2008. Capt. M.L. Blair, Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards. [FR Doc. E8-14288 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2008-0499] National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will have a web based meeting to discuss various issues relating to Maritime Security. This meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The Committee will meet on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. EST. This meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before Monday, July 11, 2008. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee should reach the Coast Guard on or before Monday, July 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet via a web enabled interactive online format. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Ryan Owens, Assistant to Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Room 5302, Washington, DC 20593. You may also e-mail material to *ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil.* This notice is available in our online docket, Docket No. USCG-2008-0499, at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan F. Owens, Assistant to DFO of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee at
(202)372-1108 or *ryan.f.owens@uscg.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). Agenda of Meeting The agenda for the July 22, 2008, Committee meeting is as follows:
(1)Report and Discussion of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC)Working Group.
(2)Update and Discussion on the Maritime Government Coordination Council and the Maritime Sector Coordination Council. Procedural This meeting is open to the public and will be conducted via an online meeting format. If you would like to participate in this meeting, please log onto *https://fedgov.webex.com/fedgov/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=695573884* and follow the online instructions to register for this meeting. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Assistant to DFO no later than Monday, July 11, 2008. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than Monday, July 11, 2008. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Assistant to DFO no later than Monday, July 11, 2008. Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the DFO as soon as possible. Dated: June 18, 2008. M.P. O'Malley, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Port and Facility Activities, Designated Federal Official, NMSAC. [FR Doc. E8-14368 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1761-DR] Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1761-DR), dated May 23, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 23, 2008. Douglas County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14324 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1766-DR] Indiana; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008. Hamilton, Parke, and Putnam Counties for Individual Assistance. Randolph County for Individual Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14331 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1766-DR] Indiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008. Adams and Knox Counties for Individual Assistance. Brown, Clay, Daviess, Dearborn, Greene, Henry, Jackson, Jennings, Owen, Rush, Shelby, and Sullivan Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14332 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1766-DR] Indiana; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008. Gibson and Posey Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14361 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1766-DR] Indiana; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008. Decatur and Wayne Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14362 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1763-DR] Iowa; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 27, 2008. Jasper, Mahaska, Mills, and Monona Counties for Individual Assistance. Chickasaw and Warren Counties for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance. Crawford County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance). Allamakee, Fayette, Johnson, Jones, and Page Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). Adair, Hancock, Humboldt, Kossuth, Madison, Taylor, and Webster Counties for Public Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14318 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1763-DR] Iowa; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 27, 2008. Benton, Bremer, Fayette, Hardin, Johnson, and Linn Counties for Individual Assistance. Cerro Gordo, Delaware, and Floyd Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.) (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14322 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1763-DR] Iowa; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 27, 2008. Cedar, Jones, Louisa, Muscatine, Polk, and Winneshiek Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14323 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1763-DR] Iowa; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 27, 2008. Adams and Page Counties for Individual Assistance. Marion, Story, Tama, and Union Counties for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance. Boone, Cerro Gordo, Crawford, Dallas, Dubuque, Floyd, and Franklin Counties for Public Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14329 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1763-DR] Iowa; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 27, 2008. Allamakee, Des Moines, Fremont, and Harrison Counties for Individual Assistance. Clayton County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance. Adams, Linn, and Winneshiek Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). Grundy, Howard, Iowa, Marshall, Mitchell, Ringgold, Worth, and Wright Counties for Public Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14358 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1767-DR] Montana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Montana (FEMA-1767-DR), dated June 13, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 13, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 13, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Montana resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of May 1-2, 2008, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Montana. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tony Russell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. The following areas of the State of Montana have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster: Carter, Custer, Fallon, and Powder River Counties for Public Assistance. All counties within the State of Montana are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14357 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1768-DR] Wisconsin; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated June 14, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 14, 2008. Dodge, Green, Washington, Waukesha, and Winnebago Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14316 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1768-DR] Wisconsin; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated June 14, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 14, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Wisconsin resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding beginning on June 5, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Wisconsin. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. The following areas of the State of Wisconsin have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster: Crawford, Columbia, Sauk, Milwaukee, and Vernon Counties for Individual Assistance. All counties within the State of Wisconsin are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14319 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA-1768-DR] Wisconsin; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated June 14, 2008, and related determinations. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 14, 2008. Racine and Richland Counties for Individual Assistance. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA)are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.) R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-14359 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5195-C-02] Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFA)for HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)—Competitive Reallocation of CHDO Funds To Provide for Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Housing for Low-Income Families; Correction AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice of funding availability (NOFA), Correction. SUMMARY: On May 16, 2008, HUD published its NOFA for the Competitive Reallocation of Community Housing Development Organizations
(CHDO)Funds to Provide for Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Housing for Low-Income Families. Today's notice corrects the OMB control number as set out in the May 16, 2008 publication. DATES: The application deadline date for the Competitive Reallocation of CHDO Funds to Provide for Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Housing for Low-Income Families NOFA remains as published in the **Federal Register** on May 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Macomber, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone 202-708-2684 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Income Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28664), HUD published its NOFA for the Competitive Reallocation of CHDO Funds to Provide for Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Housing for Low-Income Families. The NOFA announced the availability of approximately $1 million in deobligated HOME CHDO set-aside funds for competitive reallocation in order to expand the supply of energy efficient and environmentally-friendly (Green) housing that is affordable to low-income families, using design and technology models that can be replicated. Today's notice corrects the OMB control number as set out in the May 16, 2008 publication. Accordingly, HUD is correcting its NOFA for the Competitive Reallocation of CHDO Funds to Provide for Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Housing for Low-Income Families published on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28664), as follows: On page 28665, Section I.H., first column, HUD is amending this paragraph to read as follows: *H. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement* . The information collection requirements in this NOFA have been submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2505-0178. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number. Dated: June 18, 2008. Nelson R. Bregón, General Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. E8-14289 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-020-1430-FQ; FLES-016153] Public Land Order No. 7711; Revocation of the Withdrawal Established by Executive Order Dated December 19, 1883; Florida AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public land order. SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety the withdrawal established by an Executive Order as to 667.96 acres of public land withdrawn from surface entry and mining and reserved for use by the United States Coast Guard for lighthouse purposes. The reservation is no longer needed by the United States Coast Guard. This order makes 44.77 acres of the formerly reserved land available for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The remaining land was previously conveyed out of Federal ownership. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Wells, Bureau of Land Management—Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, 703-440-1527. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the land, except as described in Paragraph 2, has been conveyed out of Federal ownership. This revocation is for record clearing purposes only for the lands previously conveyed out of Federal ownership. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), *it is ordered* as follows: 1. The withdrawal established by Executive Order dated December 19, 1883, which reserved public land on Sanibel Island, Florida, for lighthouse purposes, *is hereby revoked* in its entirety. 2. The following described land is hereby made available for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 (2000): Tallahassee Meridian T. 46 S., R. 23 E., Sec. 21, lots 1 and 4. The area described contains 44.77 acres in Lee County. Dated: June 4, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-14385 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-070-1430-FQ; MTM 058317 and MTM 40412] Public Land Order No. 7712; Modification of Executive Order Dated July 2, 1910 and Secretarial Order Dated May 6, 1910; Montana AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public land order. SUMMARY: This order modifies an Executive Order and a Secretarial Order insofar as they affect 20 acres of public lands withdrawn by Power Site Reserve No. 141. This action also notifies the public of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determination that opens 10 acres within a Power Project overlapping the Power Site Reserve. The combined actions will open the lands to a land exchange subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Hotaling, BLM Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, Montana, 406-533-7600, or Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5052. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action will permit the consummation of a pending land exchange and reserves the power rights to the United States. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), the Act of June 10, 1920, Section 24, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 818 (2000), and pursuant to the determination of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in DVMT-251-000, dated May 3, 2007, it is declared and ordered as follows: 1. At 9 a.m. on July 25, 2008, the following described lands, withdrawn by Executive Order dated July 2, 1910, and Secretarial Order dated May 6, 1910, for Power Site Reserve No. 141 and Federal Power Commission Order dated April 23, 1956, for Power Project No. 2188, will be opened to disposal by land exchange, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the Federal Power Act as specified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in DVMT-251-000, and subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, and the requirements of applicable law: Principal Meridian, Montana T. 11 N., R. 2 W., Sec. 17, lots 3 and 4. The areas described aggregate approximately 20 acres in Lewis and Clark County. 2. The State of Montana waived its preference right for public highway rights-of-way or material sites as provided by the Act of June 19, 1920, Section 24, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 818 (2000). Authority: 43 CFR 2320. Dated: June 4, 2008. C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E8-14382 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before June 7, 2008. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by July 10, 2008. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. FLORIDA Bay County Christo, A.A. Payne-John, Sr., House, 940 West Beach Dr., Panama City, 08000671 ILLINOIS Lake County Libertyville High School Brainerd Building, 416 W. Park Ave., Libertyville, 08000678 IOWA Marion County Ten Hagen Cottage—Stegman Store, 1110 W. Washington St., Pella, 08000685 Van Maren, Henry and Johanna, House—Diamond Filling Station, 615 Main St., Pella, 08000683 Polk County Des Moines Western Railway Freight House, (Advent & Development of Railroads in Iowa MPS) 625 E. Court Ave., Des Moines, 08000682 Story County Sigma Sigma-Delta Chi Fraternity House, 405 Hayward Ave., Ames, 08000684 KANSAS Harvey County McKinley Residential Historic District, Roughly E. 5th St., SE 3rd St., Allison St., Walnut St., Newton, 08000670 Shawnee County Constitution Hall—Topeka, 429 S. Kansas Ave., Topeka, 08000669 Wilson County Brown Hotel (Boundary Increase), 519-523 Main St., Neodesha, 08000690 MAINE Oxford County Rivercroft Farm, 55, 59 and 60 River St., Fryeburg, 08000668 Penobscot County Cliffwood Hall, 15 Rebel Hill Rd., Clifton, 08000666 Harold Allan Schoolhouse, 15 Rebel Hill Rd., Clifton, 08000667 MISSISSIPPI Forrest County Eaton Elementary School, 1105 McInnis Ave., Hattiesburg, 08000676 MISSISSIPPI Hinds County Mississippi Foundry and Machine Company Building, 300 W. South St., Jackson, 08000674 Marion County Broad Street—Church Street Historic District, Roughly bounded by High School St. on the W. and Pine Ave. on the E. along Sumrall Ave. along Broad St., Columbia, 08000672 Oktibbeha County Greensboro Street Historic District (Boundary Increase), Earnest Jones Jr. Dr., Greensboro St., Louisville St., Main St. W., Raymond St., Yeates St., Starkville, 08000673 Panola County Como Commercial Historic District, (Johnson, Andrew, Architecture in North Mississippi TR) Roughly bounded by Elder Frank Ward St. on the W. and N. Main St on the E. On the N. bounded by Church Ave., Como, 08000675 MISSOURI Cape Girardeau County Schultz, Louis J., School, 101 S. Pacific St., Cape Girardeau, 08000663 Jasper County Joplin Downtown Historic District, (Historic Resources of Joplin, Missouri) S. Main St., roughly between E. 4th and E. 6th Sts., Joplin, 08000661 Saline County Arrow Rock Ferry, (Santa Fe Trail MPS) Address Restricted, Arrow Rock, 08000664 St. Louis Independent city Pendennis Club Apartment Building, 3737 Washington Ave., St. Louis, 08000665 NORTH DAKOTA Ramsey County Methodist Episcopal Church, 601 5th St. NE., Devils Lake, 08000680 Westminster Presbyterian Church, 501 5th St. NE., Devils Lake, 08000679 Rolette County Coghlan Castle, Lot 2, SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 T163N R69W Section 19, St. John, 08000681 TENNESSEE Davidson County Centennial Park, W. End Ave. jct 25th Ave. N., Nashville, 08000689 Knox County North Hills Historic District, (Knoxville and Knox County MPS) Roughly bounded by North Hills Blvd., North Park Blvd., Fountain Park Blvd., Knoxville, 08000677 Madison County Temple B'Nai Israel, 401 W. Grand St., Jackson, 08000687 Polk County Copperhill Historic District (Boundary Increase), (Tennessee Copper Basin MPS) Roughly bounded by Depaul St., Depot St., and Main St., Copperhill, 08000688 VERMONT Bennington County Johnny Seesaw's Historic District, 3574 VT 11, Peru, 08000686 WISCONSIN Sawyer County Kinnamon School Building, 8493N Co. Rd. E, Hayward, 08000660 Request for REMOVAL has been made for the following resources: MISSISSIPPI Amite County Talbert-Cassels House, Off MS 574, Gloster, 84002125 Hancock County Glen Oak—Kimbrough House, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 806 N. Beach Blvd., Bay St. Louis, 86003271 Taylor House, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 808 N. Beach Blvd., Bay St. Louis, 86003273 Taylor School, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 116 Leonard St. Bay St. Louis, 87000209 Onward Oaks, (Bay St. Louis MRA) 972 South Beach Blvd., Bay St. Louis, 96001265 Harrison County Brielmaier House, (Biloxi MRA) 710 Beach Blvd., Biloxi, 84002170 Fisherman's Cottage, (Biloxi MRA) 138 Lameuse St., Biloxi, 84002182 Gillis House, 590 Beach Blvd., Biloxi, 78001599 Hewes, Finley B., House, 604 E. Beach Blvd., Gulfport, 02000852 House at 771 West Water Street, (Biloxi MRA) 771 W. Water S., Biloxi, 84002191 Milner House, 720 E. Beach Blvd., Gulfport, 72000692 Reed, Pleasant House, 928 Elmer St., Biloxi, 79001308 Toledano-Philbrick-Tullis House, 947 E. Beach Blvd., Biloxi, 76001095 Jackson County Clark, Clare T., House, (Pascagoula MPS) 1709 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula, 91001785 Cottage by the Sea Tavern, (Pascagoula MPS) 1205 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula, 91001789 Farnsworth, R.A., Summer Home, (Pascagoula MPS) 901 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula, 91001790 Halstead Place, (Ocean Springs MRA) E. Beach Dr., Ocean Springs, 87000594 Hull, Edgar W., House, (Pascagoula MPS) 2903 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula, 91001797 Kinne, Georgia P., House, (Pascagoula MPS) 1101 Beach Blvd., Pascagoula, 91001798 Lauderdale County Meridian Baptist Seminary, 16th St. and 31st Ave. Meridian, 79001326 [FR Doc. E8-14297 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Notice of Proposed Information Collection for 1029-0054 and 1029-0083 AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM)is announcing that the information collection requests for 30 CFR 872, Abandoned mine reclamation funds; and 30 CFR part 955 and the Form OSM-74, Certification of Blasters in Federal program States and on Indian lands have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and reauthorization. The information collection packages were previously approved and assigned clearance numbers 1029-0054 for 30 CFR 872, and 1029-0083 for 30 CFR 955 and the OSM-74 form. This notice describes the nature of the information collection activities and the expected burdens and costs. DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by July 25, 2008, in order to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at
(202)395-6566 or via e-mail to *OIRA_Docket@omb.eop.gov* . Also, please send a copy of your comments to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 202-SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to *jtrelease@osmre.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request a copy of the information collection requests, explanatory information and related forms, contact John A. Trelease at
(202)208-2783, or electronically to *jtrelease@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted requests to OMB to renew its approval for the collections of information for 30 CFR 872, Abandoned mine reclamation funds; and 30 CFR 955 and the Form OSM-74, Certification of Blasters in Federal program States and on Indian lands. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for these information collection activities. 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 these collections of information are listed in 30 CFR 872.10, which is 1029-0054; and on the form OSM-74 and in 30 CFR 955.10, which is 1029 0083. As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), **Federal Register** notices soliciting comments on these collections of information were published on March 19, 2008 (73 FR 14838), for 30 CFR 872, and on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16908), for the form OSM-74 and 30 CFR 955. No comments were received from either notice. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activities: *Title:* 30 CFR Part 872—Abandoned mine reclamation funds. *OMB Control Number:* 1029-0054. *Summary:* 30 CFR part 872 establishes a procedure whereby States and Indian tribes submit written statements announcing the State/Tribe's decision not to submit reclamation plans, and therefore, will not be granted AML funds. *Bureau Form Number:* None. *Frequency of Collection:* Once. *Description of Respondents:* State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation agencies. *Total Annual Responses:* 1. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1. *Title:* 30 CFR Part 955 and Form OSM-74—Certification of blasters in Federal program States and on Indian lands. *OMB Control Number:* 1029-0083. *Summary:* This information is being collected to ensure that the applicants for blaster certification are qualified. This information, with blasting tests, will be used to determine the eligibility of the applicant. The affected public will be blasters who want to be certified by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to conduct blasting on Indian lands or in Federal primacy States. *Bureau Form Number:* OSM-74. *Frequency of Collection:* On occasion. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals intent on being certified as blasters in Federal program States and on Indian lands. *Total Annual Responses:* 8. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 18. *Total Annual Non-Wage Burden Cost:* $549. Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under ADDRESSES . Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence, 1029-0054 for 30 CFR part 872 and 1029-0083 for 30 CFR part 955 and the OSM-74 form. 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. Dated: June 5, 2008. John R. Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. E8-14212 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. National Association of Realtors®; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in *United States of America* v. *National Association of Realtors* ®, No. 05-C-5140. On September 8, 2005, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that the National Association of Realtors® (“NAR”) violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by adopting policies that suppress competition from real estate brokers who use password-protected “virtual office Web sites” or “VOWs” to deliver high-quality brokerage services to their customers. The proposed Final Judgment, filed on May 27, 2008, requires NAR to repeal the challenged policies and to adopt new rules that do not discriminate against brokers who use VOWs. Copies of the Amended Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 5th Street, NW., Room 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202 514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr* , and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust I Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the **Federal Register** and filed with the Court. Comments should be addressed to John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 5th Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530,
(202)307-0468. J. Robert Kramer II, Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division United States of America, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530. Plaintiff, v. National Association of Realtors, 430 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05C-5140, Judge Filip, Magistrate Judge Denlow, Filed: October 4, 2005. Amended Complaint The United States of America, by its attorneys acting under the direction of the Attorney General, brings this civil action pursuant to section 4 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, to obtain equitable and other relief to prevent and restrain violations of section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1. The United States alleges: 1. The United States brings this action to enjoin the defendant a national association of real estate brokers—from maintaining or enforcing policies that restrain competition from brokers who use the Internet to more efficiently and cost effectively serve home sellers and buyers, and from adopting other related anticompetitive rules. 2. The brokers against whom the policies discriminate operate secure, password-protected Internet sites that enable the brokers' customers to search for and receive real estate listings over the Internet. These Web sites thus replace or augment the traditional practice by which the broker conducts a search of properties for sale and then provides information to the customer by hand, mail, fax, or e-mail. Since these Web sites were first developed in the late 1990s, brokers' use of the Internet in connection with their delivery of brokerage services has become an important competitive alternative to traditional “brick-and-mortar” business models. 3. Defendant's members include traditional brokers who are concerned about competition from Internet-savvy brokers. Before defendant adopted its policies, several of its members voiced opposition to brokers' delivery of listings to customers through their Web sites—sites that defendant referred to as “virtual office Web sites,” or “VOWs.” The head of the working group created by defendant to develop regulations for VOWs argued that defendant should act quickly in adopting regulations for the use of these Web sites because brokers operating VOWs were “scooping up market share just below the radar.” The chairman of the board of RE/MAX, the nation's second-largest real estate franchisor, publicly expressed his concern that these Internet sites would inevitably place downward pressure on brokers' commission rates. One broker complained that because of the lower cost structure of brokers who provide listings to their customers over the Internet, “they are able to kick-back 1% of the sales price to the buyer.” And Cendant, the nation's largest real estate franchisor and owner of the nation's largest real estate brokerage, asserted in a widely circulated white paper that it was “not feasible” for even the largest traditional brokers to compete with large Internet companies that operated or affiliated with brokers operating VOWs. 4. In response to such concerns, defendant, through its members, adopted a policy (the “Initial VOW Policy”) limiting this new competition. The Initial VOW Policy has been implemented in many markets. After plaintiff informed NAR of its intention to bring this action, NAR announced that it had modified this policy (the “Modified VOW Policy”). Plaintiff challenges both policies in this action as part of a single, ongoing contract, combination, or conspiracy. 5. These policies significantly alter the governing multiple listing services (“MLSs”). MLSs collect detailed information about nearly all properties for sale through brokers and are indispensable tools for brokers serving buyers and sellers in each MLS's market area. Defendant's local Realtor associations (“member boards”) control a majority of the MLSs in the United States. 6. Defendant's VOW Policies permit brokers to withhold their clients' listings from VOW operators by means of an “opt-out” right. In essence, the policies allow traditional brokers to block the customers of web-based competitors from using the Internet to review the same set of MLS listings that the traditional brokers provide to their customers. 7. The working group that formulated defendant's Initial VOW Policy understood that the opt-out right was fundamentally anticompetitive and harmful to consumers. Two members of the working group wrote that the opt-out right would be “abused beyond belief” as traditional brokers selectively withhold listings from particular VOW-based competitors. The chairman of the working group admitted that the opt-out right was likely to be exercised by brokers notwithstanding the fact that “it may not be in the seller[']s best interest to opt out.” But he took comfort in the fact that the rule did not require brokers to disclose to clients that their listings would be withheld from some prospective purchasers as a result of the brokers' opt-out decision, thus providing brokers “flexibility without conversation.” 8. Defendant's VOW Policies restrict the manner in which brokers with efficient, Internet-based business models may provide listings to their customers, and impose additional restrictions on brokers operating VOWs that do not apply to their traditional competitors. Defendant thus denies brokers using new technologies and business models the same benefits of MLS membership available to their competitor brokers, and it suppresses technological innovation, discourages competition on price and quality, and raises barriers to entry. Defendant—an association of competitors—has agreed to policies that suppress new competition and harm consumers. Jurisdiction and Venue 9. This Complaint is filed under section 4 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, to prevent and restrain violations by defendant of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because defendant maintains its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and is found here. Defendant 11. Defendant National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) is a trade association organized under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. NAR establishes and enforces policies and professional standards for its over one million individual member brokers and their affiliated agents and sales associates (“Realtors”), and 1,600 local and state member boards. NAR's member brokers compete with one another in local brokerage services markets to represent consumers in connection with real estate transactions. Concerted Action 12. Various others, not named as defendants, have contracted, combined, or conspired with NAR in the violations alleged in this Complaint and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof. Trade and Commerce 13. NAR's policies govern the conduct of its members in all fifty states, including all Realtors and all of NAR's member boards. NAR's member boards control approximately eighty percent of the approximately 1,000 MLSs in the United States. 14. NAR's activities, and the violations alleged in this Complaint, affect home buyers and sellers located throughout the United States. 15. NAR, through its members, is engaged in interstate commerce and is engaged in activity affecting interstate commerce. Relevant Markets 16. The provision of real estate brokerage services to sellers of residential real property and the provision of real estate brokerage services to buyers of residential real property are relevant service markets. 17. The real estate brokerage business is local in nature. Most sellers prefer to work with a broker who is familiar with local market conditions and who maintains an office or affiliated sales associates within a reasonable distance of the seller's property. Likewise, most buyers seek to purchase property in a particular city, community, or neighborhood, and typically prefer to work with a broker who has knowledge of the area in which they have an interest. The geographic coverage of the MLS serving each town, city, or metropolitan area normally establishes the outermost boundaries of each relevant geographic market, although meaningful competition among brokers may occur in narrower local areas. Background of the Offense 18. At any one time there are over 1.5 million homes for sale in the United States. Most home sellers and buyers engage residential real estate brokers to facilitate transactions. 19. The predominant form of payment for brokerage services is a “commission,” a percentage of the price paid for the property. In a typical transaction, the seller agrees to pay a commission to the broker who has contracted with the seller to market the home (the “listing broker”). If the listing broker finds the buyer, the listing broker keeps the full commission. Frequently, however, a second broker (the “cooperating broker”) finds the buyer, and the two brokers share the commission. 20. After a listing broker has established an agency relationship with a seller, the broker typically submits detailed information regarding the seller's property to a local NAR-affiliated MLS. Along with the information about the property it submits to the MLS, the listing broker also typically includes an offer to split the commission with any cooperating broker. Multiple Listing Services 21. MLSs are joint ventures among competing brokers to share their clients' listings and to cooperate in other ways. MLSs list virtually all homes for sale through a broker in the areas they serve. In a substantial majority of markets, a single MLS provides the only available comprehensive compilation of listings. The MLS allows brokers representing sellers to effectively market the sellers' properties to all other broker participants in the MLS and their buyer customers. Conversely, the MLS allows brokers to provide their buyer customers information about all listed properties in which the customers might have an interest. 22. NAR promulgates rules governing the conduct of MLSs and requires its member boards to adopt these rules. 23. The vast majority of brokers believes that they must participate in the MLS operating in their local market in order to adequately serve their customers and compete with other brokers. As a result, few brokers would withdraw from MLS participation even if the fees or other costs associated with that participation substantially increased. 24. By virtue of industry-wide participation and control over a critically important input, the MLS (a joint venture of competing brokers) has market power in almost every relevant market. 25. The methods of making MLS information available to customers have changed as technology has evolved. From the l920s, when MLSs first became prevalent, brokers allowed customers to view a printed “MLS book.” Later, the availability of copy machines allowed brokers to reproduce pages from the MLS book and deliver the pages with responsive listings to customers by hand or mail. The advent of facsimile transmission—and, later, electronic mail—further quickened the process of delivering MLS listings to customers. Virtual Office Web Sites 26. With the development of the Internet as an information source for consumers, potential home buyers began to seek Internet sources of information about homes for sale. Beginning in the late 1990s, a number of NAR member brokers began creating password-protected Web sites that enabled potential home buyers, once they had registered as customers of the broker and agreed to certain restrictions on their use of the data, to search the MLS database themselves and to obtain responsive MLS listings over the Internet. These Web sites came to be known as virtual office Web sites or VOWs. NAR recognizes the Internet delivery of MLS listings to customers to be an authorized method of providing brokerage services. 27. Brokers can use the Internet to operate more efficiently than they can by using only traditional methods. By transferring search functions from the broker to customers who prefer such control over the process, VOW-operating brokers allow customers to educate themselves at their own pace about the market in which they are considering a purchase. By doing so, brokers with successful password-protected Web sites are able to reduce or eliminate the time and expense involved in identifying and providing relevant listings and otherwise educating their customers. These brokers also spend less time on home tours with their buyer customers, as these buyers frequently tour fewer homes before making a purchase decision than typical buyers. With lower cost structures, brokers with Internet-intensive business models have offered discounted commissions to sellers or commission rebates to buyers. 28. Other sources of listing information on the Internet are inferior to the password-protected VOWs because they do not and cannot guarantee access to all information available in the MLS. 29. Brokers can also use the Internet to support a “referral” business model. Referral services provide brokers information about potential buyers in return for a share of any commission the broker receives if the “lead” results in a completed transaction. Brokers are not obliged to purchase leads from referral services and do so only when they choose to. Some traditional brokers refer customers to other brokers for a fee, and some VOW operators, similarly, have referred (or have considered referring) some of their customers to other brokers for a fee. Many brokers dislike the concept of paying for leads, and the prospect that Internet-savvy brokers could support referral business models has been a source of industry antipathy to VOWs. Nature of the Offense 30. Brokers with innovative, Internet-based business models present a competitive challenge to brokers who provide listings to their customers only by traditional methods. Many brick-and-mortar brokers fear the ability of VOW operators to use Internet technology to attract more customers and provide better service at a lower cost. 31. In response to concerns raised by certain NAR members about this new form of competition, NAR's Board of Directors voted on May 17, 2003, to adopt the “Initial VOW Policy,” a “Policy governing use of MLS data in connection with Internet brokerage services offered by MLS Participants (‘Virtual Office Web sites’).” Prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action, NAR had mandated that all 1,600 of its member boards implement the Initial VOW Policy by January 1, 2006. Approximately 200 member boards implemented the Initial VOW Policy and received NAR's approval of their implementing rules. 32. Section 1.3 of the Initial VOW Policy contains an opt-out provision that forbids any broker participating in an MLS from conveying a listing to his or her customers via the Internet without the permission of the listing broker. Specifically, the opt-out provision allows brokers to direct that their clients' listings not be displayed on any VOW (a “blanket opt-out”), or on a particular competing broker's VOW (a “selective opt-out”). 33. In contrast, prior to NAR's adoption of the Initial VOW Policy, a broker could provide any relevant listing in the MLS database to any customer—by whatever method the customer or broker preferred, including via the Internet. Nearly all of NAR's member boards had also adopted rules requiring all participants in their affiliated MLSs to submit, with minor exceptions, all of their clients' listings to the MLS. More importantly, NAR did not permit any broker to withhold his or her clients' listings from a rival. 34. In several of the markets in which NAR's member boards have implemented the Initial VOW Policy, brokers have already exercised their opt-out rights to withhold their clients' listings from the customers of brokers operating VOWs, as well as from brokers who will use password-protected Web sites to provide listings to their customers in the future. In at least one such instance, an innovative broker discontinued operation of his Web site because all of his competitor brokers had opted out, making him unable to effectively serve his customers through operation of his site. 35. Section II.4.g of the Initial VOW Policy contains an “anti-referral” provision that, with minor exceptions, forbids VOW operators from referring their customers to “any other entity” for a fee. In contrast, no NAR rule limits referrals for a fee by brokers who do not convey MLS listings to customers over the Internet. 36. The Initial VOW Policy includes other provisions that impose greater restrictions and limitations on brokers with Internet-based business models than on traditional brokers. For example, under section IV.I.b of the Initial VOW Policy, NAR's member boards may forbid VOW operators from displaying advertising on any Web site on which MLS listings information is displayed. In contrast, no NAR rule limits the ability of traditional brokers to include advertisements in packages of printed listings they provide to their customers. 37. The Initial VOW Policy also contains provisions to make it obligatory and enforceable. Section I.4 of the Initial VOW Policy expressly forbids NAR's member boards from adopting rules “more or less restrictive than, or otherwise inconsistent with” the Initial VOW Policy, including the opt-out provisions and the anti-referral provision. Appendix A to the Initial VOW Policy provides for remedies and sanctions for violation of the Policy, including financial penalties and termination of MLS privileges. 38. On September 8, 2005, after plaintiff informed NAR of its intention to bring this action, NAR advised its member boards to suspend application and enforcement of the above-referenced provisions of the Initial VOW Policy, and announced its adoption of a new “Internet Listings Display Policy” and its revision of an MLS membership policy (together, the “Modified VOW Policy”). NAR's Modified VOW Policy continues to impede brokers from using the Internet to serve home sellers and buyers more efficiently and cost effectively. NAR's Modified VOW Policy mandates that all of NAR's member boards enact rules implementing the Internet Listings Display Policy by July 1, 2006, but NAR subsequently communicated to its member boards that they “wait to adopt” the policy “until th[is] litigation is over.” 39. Section 1.3 of the Modified VOW Policy contains a blanket opt-out provision that forbids any broker participating in an MLS from conveying a listing to his or her customers via the Internet without the permission of the listing broker. Specifically, the opt-out provision allows brokers to direct that their clients' listings not be displayed on any competitor's Internet site. When exercised, this provision prevents a broker from providing over the Internet the same MLS information that brick-and-mortar brokers can provide in their offices. Additionally, NAR's Modified VOW Policy specifically exempts its own “Official Site,” Realtor.com, from the blanket opt-out that applies to all Internet sites operated by brokers. 40. The portion of the Modified VOW Policy that is NAR's revision to its membership policies—much like the Initial VOW Policy's anti-referral rule—denies MLS membership and access to listings to brokers operating referral services. This membership policy effectively forbids Internet-based brokers from referring their customers to other brokers for a fee. 41. NAR's Modified VOW Policy includes other provisions that restrict brokers' ability to use the Internet to serve their customers effectively. The Modified VOW Policy, for example, allows MLSs to downgrade the quality of the data feed they provide brokers, effectively restraining brokers from providing innovative, Internet-based features to enhance the service they offer their customers. The Modified VOW Policy also permits MLSs to interfere with efficient “cobranding” relationships between brokers and entities that refer potential customers to the broker. 42. Defendant's policies, both the Initial VOW Policy and the Modified VOW Policy, thus prevent brokers from guaranteeing customers access through the Internet to all relevant listing information, increase the business risk and other costs associated with operating an efficient, Internet-intensive brokerage, deny brokers a source of high-quality referrals, and withhold from Internet brokers revenue streams permitted to other participants in the MLS. Moreover, the opt-out provisions provide brokers an effective tool to individually or collectively punish aggressive competition by any Internet-based broker. 43. Unless permanently restrained and enjoined, defendant will continue to engage in conduct that restricts competition from innovative brokers in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Violation Alleged 44. NAR's adoption of the above-referenced provisions in its Initial VOW Policy and its Modified VOW Policy, or equivalent provisions, constitutes a contract, combination, or conspiracy by and between NAR and its members which unreasonably restrains competition in brokerage service markets throughout the United States in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. 45. The aforesaid contract, combination, or conspiracy has had and will continue to have anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets, including: a. Suppressing technological innovation; b. Reducing competition on price and quality; c. Restricting efficient cooperation among brokers; d. Making express or tacit collusion more likely; and e. Raising barriers to entry. 46. This contract, combination, or conspiracy is not reasonably necessary to accomplish any procompetitive objective, or, alternatively, its scope is broader than necessary to accomplish any such objective. Request for Relief *Wherefore,* the United States prays that final judgment be entered against defendant declaring, ordering, and adjudging: a. That the aforesaid contract, combination, or conspiracy unreasonably restrains trade and is illegal under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; b. That the defendant be restrained and enjoined from requiring or permitting its member boards or the MLSs with which they are affiliated to adopt rules implementing the opt-out provisions; c. That the defendant be restrained and enjoined from requiring or permitting its member boards or the MLSs with which they are affiliated to adopt rules implementing the anti-referral provision or an MLS membership restriction that denies MLS access to operators of Internet-based referral services; d. That the defendant be restrained and enjoined from requiring or permitting its member boards or the MLSs with which they are affiliated to adopt rules that restrict—or condition MLS access or MLS participation rights on—the method by which a broker interacts with his or her customers, competitor brokers, or other persons or entities; e. That the Court grant such other relief as the United States may request and the Court deems just and proper; and f. That the United States recover its costs in this action. Dated: October 4, 2005. J. Bruce Mcdonald, *Deputy Assistant Attorney General.* J. Robert Kramer II, *Director of Operations.* Patrick J. Fitzgerald, *United States Attorney,* *Northern District of Illinois, by Linda Wawzenski,* *Assistant United States Attorney.* Craig W. Conrath, David C. Kully, Mary Beth Mcgee, Allen P. Grunes, Lisa A. Scanlon, *Attorneys for the United States,* *Department of Justice,* *Antitrust Division,* *325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 300,* *Washington, DC 20530,* *Telephone:
(202)305-9969,* *Facsimile:
(202)307-9952.* Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 4th day of October, 2005, I have caused a copy of the foregoing Amended Complaint be served by Federal Express upon counsel for Defendant in this matter: Jack R. Bierig, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, Bank One Plaza, 10 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603. Linda Wawzenski. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division United States of America, Plaintiff, v. National Association of Realtors®, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05 C 5140, Judge Kennelly, Magistrate Judge Denlow. [Proposed] Final Judgment *Whereas,* Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Amended Complaint on October 4, 2005, alleging that Defendant National Association of Realtors® (“NAR”) adopted policies that restrain competition from innovative real estate brokers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Plaintiff and Defendant, by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against, or any admission by, any party regarding any issue of fact or law; *Whereas,* Defendant has not admitted and does not admit either the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint or any liability or wrongdoing; *Whereas,* the United States does not allege that Defendant's Internet Data Exchange
(IDX)Policy in its current form violates the antitrust laws; and *Whereas,* the United States requires Defendant to agree to certain procedures and prohibitions for the purpose of preventing the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint; *Now therefore,* before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact, and upon consent of the parties, it is *Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed:* I. Jurisdiction This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant under section 1 of the Sherman Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1). II. Definitions As used in this Final Judgment: A. “Broker” means a Person licensed by a state to provide services to a buyer or seller in connection with a real estate transaction. The term includes any Person who possesses a Broker's license and any agent or sales associate who is affiliated with such a Broker. B. “Customer” means a seller client of a Broker or a Person who has expressed to a Broker an interest in purchasing residential real property and who has described the type, features, or location of the property in which he or she has an interest, entitling the Broker to Provide the Customer multiple listing service (“MLS”) listing information by any method (e.g., by hand, mail, facsimile, electronic mail, or display on a VOW). C. “Final Judgment” includes the Modified VOW Policy attached as Exhibit A and the definition of MLS Participant and accompanying Note attached as Exhibit B. D. “ILD Policy” means the “ILD (Internet Listing Display) Policy” that NAR adopted on or about August 31, 2005, and any amendments thereto. E. “Including” means including, but not limited to. F. “Listing Information” means all records of residential properties (and any information relating to those properties) stored or maintained by a multiple listing service. G. “Member Board” means any state or local Board of Realtors® or Association of Realtors®, including any city, county, inter-county, or inter-state Board or Association, and any multiple listing service owned by, or affiliated with, any such Board of Realtors® or Association of Realtors®. H. “Modified VOW Policy” means the policy attached to this Final Judgment as Exhibit A. I. “NAR” means the National Association of Realtors®, its predecessors, successors, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures and all directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives of the foregoing. The terms “subsidiary,” “affiliate,” and “joint venture” refer to any Person in which there is or has been partial (twenty percent or more) or total ownership or control between NAR and any other Person. J. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, company, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, office, or other business or legal entity, whether private or governmental. K. “Provide” means to deliver, display, disseminate, convey, or reproduce. L. “Rule” means any rule, model rule, ethical rule, bylaw, policy, standard, or guideline and any interpretation of any Rule issued or approved by NAR, whether or not the final implementation date of any such Rule has passed. M. “VOW” or “virtual office Web site” means a Web site, or feature of a Web site, operated by a Broker or for a Broker by another Person through which the Broker is capable of providing real estate brokerage services to consumers with whom the Broker has first established a Broker-consumer relationship (as defined by state law) where the consumer has the opportunity to search MLS data, subject to the Broker's oversight, supervision, and accountability. N. “VOW Policy” means the “Policy governing use of MLS data in connection with Internet brokerage services offered by MLS Participants (‘Virtual Office Web sites’),” adopted by NAR on or about May 17, 2003, and any amendments thereto. O. The terms “and” and “or” have both conjunctive and disjunctive meanings. III. Applicability This Final Judgment applies to NAR and all other Persons in active concert or participation with NAR who have received actual notice of this Final Judgment. A Member Board shall not be deemed to be in active concert with NAR solely as a consequence of the Member Board's receipt of actual notice of this Final Judgment and its affiliation with or membership in NAR and its involvement in regular activities associated with its affiliation with or membership in NAR (e.g., coverage under a NAR insurance policy, attendance at NAR meetings or conventions, or review of Member Board policies by NAR). IV. Prohibited Conduct Subject to the provisions of sections V and VI of this Final Judgment, the Modified VOW Policy (Exhibit A), and the definition of MLS Participant and accompanying Note (Exhibit B), NAR shall not adopt, maintain, or enforce any Rule, or enter into or enforce any agreement or practice, that directly or indirectly A. Prohibits a Broker from using a VOW or prohibits, restricts, or impedes a Broker who uses a VOW from providing to Customers on its VOW all of the Listing Information that a Broker is permitted to Provide to Customers by hand, mail, facsimile, electronic mail, or any other methods of delivery; B. Unreasonably disadvantages or unreasonably discriminates against a Broker in the use of a VOW to Provide to Customers all of the Listing Information that a Broker is permitted to Provide to Customers by hand, mail, facsimile, electronic mail, or any other methods of delivery; C. Prohibits, restricts, or impedes the referral of Customers whose identities are obtained from a VOW by a Broker who uses a VOW to any other Person, or establishes the price of any such referral; D. Imposes fees or costs upon any Broker who operates a VOW or upon any Person who operates a VOW for any Broker that exceed the reasonably estimated actual costs incurred by a Member Board in providing Listing Information to the Broker or Person operating the VOW or in performing any other activities relating to the VOW, or discriminates in such VOW related fees or costs between those imposed upon a Broker who operates a VOW and those imposed upon a Person who operates a VOW for a Broker, unless the MLS incurs greater costs in providing a service to a Person who operates a VOW for a Broker than it incurs in providing the same service to the Broker; or E. Is inconsistent with the Modified VOW Policy. V. Required Conduct A. Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall repeal the ILD Policy and direct each Member Board that adopted Rules implementing the ILD Policy to repeal such Rules at the next meeting of the Member Board's decisionmaking body that occurs more than ten days after receipt of the directive, but no later than ninety days after entry of this Final Judgment. B. Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall direct Member Boards that adopted Rules implementing the VOW Policy to repeal such Rules at the next meeting of the Member Board's decisionmaking body that occurs more than ten days after receipt of the directive, but no later than ninety days after entry of this Final Judgment. C. Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall adopt the Modified VOW Policy. NAR shall not change the Modified VOW Policy without either obtaining advance written approval by the United Slates Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) or an order of the Court pursuant to Section VIII of this Final Judgment authorizing the proposed modification. D. Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall direct Member Boards to adopt the Modified VOW Policy within ninety days after entry of this Final Judgment, and to thereafter maintain, act consistently with, and enforce Rules implementing the modified VOW Policy. NAR shall simultaneously direct Member Boards, beginning upon receipt of the directive, not to adopt, maintain, or enforce any Rule or practice that NAR would be prohibited from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing pursuant to Section IV of this Final Judgment (including Rules or practices that unreasonably discriminate against Brokers in their operation of VOWs). E. If NAR determines that a Member Board has not timely adopted or maintained, acted consistently with, or enforced Rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy, it shall, within thirty days of such determination, direct in writing that the Member Board do so. NAR shall deny coverage under any NAR insurance policy (or cause coverage to be denied) to any Member Board for as long as that Member Board refuses to adopt, maintain, act consistently with, and enforce rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy. NAR shall also notify the DOJ of the identity of that Member Board and the Modified VOW Policy provisions it refused to adopt, maintain, act consistently with, or enforce. For purposes of this provision, a failure of a Member Board to adopt, maintain, act consistently with, or enforce Rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy within ninety days of a written directive to that Member Board from NAR shall constitute a refusal by the Member Board to do so. F. If NAR determines that a Member Board has adopted, maintained, or enforced any Rule or practice that NAR would be prohibited from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing pursuant to Section IV of this Final Judgment (including Rules or practices that unreasonably discriminate against Brokers in their operation of VOWs), it shall, within thirty days of such determination, direct in writing that the Member Board rescind and cease to enforce that Rule or practice. NAR shall deny coverage under any NAR insurance policy (or cause coverage to be denied) to any Member Board for as long as that Member Board refuses to rescind and cease to enforce that Rule or practice. NAR shall also notify the DOJ of the identity of that Member Board and the Rule or practice it refused to rescind and cease to enforce. For purposes of this provision, a Member hoard's failure to rescind and cease to enforce the Rule or practice within ninety days of a written directive from NAR shall constitute a refusal by the Member board to do so. G. Within thirty days of entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall designate an Antitrust Compliance Officer with responsibility for educating Member Boards about the antitrust laws and for achieving full compliance with this Final Judgment. The Antitrust Compliance Officer shall be responsible for the following:
(1)Supervising NAR's review of Rules of NAR's Member Boards for compliance with this Final Judgment and the Modified VOW Policy;
(2)Maintaining copies of any communications with any Person containing allegations of any Member Board's
(i)noncompliance with any provision of the Modified VOW Policy or with this Final Judgment or
(ii)failure to enforce any Rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy;
(3)Reporting to the United States 180 days after entry of this Final Judgment and again on the first anniversary of the entry of this Final Judgment, the identity of each Member Board that has not adopted Rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy;
(4)Ensuring that each of NAR's Member Boards that owns or operates a multiple listing service are provided briefing materials, within ninety days of the entry of this Final Judgment, on the meaning and requirements of the Modified VOW Policy and this Final Judgment; and
(5)Holding an annual program for NAR Member Boards and their counsel that includes a discussion of the antitrust laws (as applied to such Member Boards) and this Final Judgment. H. NAR shall maintain and shall furnish to the DOJ on a quarterly basis (beginning ninety days after entry of this Final Judgment) copies of any communications with any Person containing allegations of any Member's Board's
(1)noncompliance with any provision of the Modified VOW Policy or with this Final Judgment or
(2)failure to enforce any Rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy. I. Within five business days after entry of this Final Judgment, NAR shall provide, in a prominent size and location on its Web site ( *http://www.realtor.org* ) a hyperlink to a Web page on which NAR has published copies of
(1)This Final Judgment;
(2)A notification that Member Boards must repeal any Rules implementing the ILD and VOW Policies (in accordance with Sections V.A and V.B of this Final Judgment); and
(3)A copy of the Modified VOW Policy. NAR shall also publish each of the three above items in the first issue of Realtor® Magazine scheduled for publication after the date of entry of this Final Judgment. VI. Permitted Conduct A. Subject to section IX of this Final Judgment, nothing in this Final Judgment shall prohibit NAR from adopting and maintaining the definition of MLS Participant and the accompanying Note, together attached as Exhibit B. However, NAR shall direct each Member Board not to suspend or expel any Broker from multiple listing service membership or participation for reasons of the Broker's then-failure to qualify for membership or participation under the definition of MLS Participant and the accompanying Note, together attached as Exhibit B, until May 27, 2009. B. Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, and subject to section IX of this Final Judgment, nothing in this Final Judgment shall prohibit NAR from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing Rules that are generally applicable on their face and that do not, in their application, unreasonably restrict any method of delivery of Listing Information to Customers. VII. Compliance Inspection A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether this Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the DOJ, including consultants and other Persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to NAR, be permitted:
(1)Access during NAR's office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require NAR to provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of NAR, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
(2)To interview, either informally or on the record, NAR's officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel and counsel for NAR present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by NAR. NAR may, however, prevent the interviewee from divulging matters protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other applicable privilege. B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, NAR shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to its compliance with any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested. C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any Person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law. D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by NAR to the United States, NAR marks as confidential any pertinent page of such material on the grounds that such page contains information as to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, then the United States shall give NAR ten calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding). VIII. Retention of Jurisdiction This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions. IX. No Limitation on Government Rights Nothing in this Final Judgment shall limit the right of the United States to investigate and bring actions to prevent or restrain violations of the antitrust laws concerning any Rule or practice adopted or enforced by NAR or any of its Member Boards. X. Expiration of Final Judgment This Final Judgment shall expire ten years from the date of its entry. XI. Public Interest Determination Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States's responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. Dated: Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16. Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge. Exhibit A Policy Governing Use of MLS Data in Connection With Internet Brokerage Services Offered by MLS Participants (“Virtual Office Web sites”) I. Definitions and Scope of Policy 1. For purposes of this Policy, the term Virtual Office Website (“VOW”) refers to a Participant's Internet Web site, or a feature of a Participant's Internet Web site, through which the Participant is capable of providing real estate brokerage services to consumers with whom the Participant has first established a broker-consumer relationship (as defined by state law) where the consumer has the opportunity to search MLS data, subject to the Participant's oversight, supervision, and accountability. a. A Participant may designate an Affiliated VOW Partner (“AVP”) to operate a VOW on behalf of the Participant, subject to the Participant's supervision and accountability and the terms of this Policy. b. A non-principal broker or sales licensee, affiliated with a Participant, may, with the Participant's consent, operate a VOW or have a VOW operated on its behalf by an AVP. Such a VOW is subject to the Participant's supervision and accountability and the terms of this Policy. c. Each use of the term “Participant” in this Policy shall also include a Participant's non-principal brokers and sales licensees (with the exception of references in this section to the “Participant's consent” and the “Participant's supervision and accountability,” and in section III.10.a, below, to the “Participant acknowledges”). Each reference to “VOW” or “VOWs” herein refers to all VOWs, whether operated by a Participant, by a non-principal broker or sales licensee, or by an AVP. 2. The right to display listings in response to consumer searches is limited to display of MLS data supplied by the MLS(s) in which the Participant has participatory rights. This does not preclude a firm with offices participating in different MLSs from operating a master Web site with links to such offices' VOWs. 3. Participants' Internet Web sites, including those operated for Participants by AVPs, may also provide other features, information, or services in addition to VOWs (including the Internet Data Exchange (“IDX”) function). 4. The display of listing information on a VOW does not require separate permission from the Participant whose listings will be available on the VOW. 5. Except as permitted in sections III and IV, MLSs may not adopt rules or regulations that conflict with this Policy or that otherwise restrict the operation of VOWs by Participants. II. Policies Applicable to Participants' VOWs 1. A Participant may provide brokerage services via a VOW that include making MLS active listing data available, but only to consumers with whom the Participant has first established a lawful consumer-broker relationship, including completion of all actions required by state law in connection with providing real estate brokerage services to clients and customers (hereinafter “Registrants”). Such actions shall include, but are not limited to, satisfying all applicable agency, non-agency, and other disclosure obligations, and execution of any required agreement(s). 2. A Participant's VOW must obtain the identity of each Registrant and obtain each Registrant's agreement to Terms of Use of the VOW, as follows: a. A Registrant must provide his or her name and a valid e-mail address. The Participant must send an e-mail to the address provided by the Registrant confirming that the Registrant has agreed to the Terms of Use (described in subsection c below). The Registrant may be permitted to access the VOW only after the Participant has verified that the e-mail address provided is valid and that Registrant received the Terms of Use confirmation. b. The Registrant must supply a user name and a password, the combination of which must be different from those of all other Registrants on the VOW, before being permitted to search and retrieve information from the MLS database via the VOW. The user name and password may be established by the Registrant or may be supplied by the Participant, at the option of the Participant. An e-mail address may be associated with only one user name and password. The Registrant's password and access must expire on a date certain but may be renewed. The Participant must at all times maintain a record of the name and e-mail address supplied by the Registrant, and the user name and current password of each Registrant. Such records must be kept for not less than 180 days after the expiration of the validity of the Registrant's password. If the MLS has reason to believe that a Participant's VOW has caused or permitted a breach in the security of the data or a violation of MLS rules related to use by one or more Registrants, the Participant shall, upon request, provide to the MLS a copy of the record of the name, e-mail address, user name, current password, and audit trail, if required, of any Registrant identified by the MLS to be suspected of involvement in the violation. c. The Registrant must be required affirmatively to express agreement to a “Terms of Use” provision that requires the Registrant to open and review an agreement that provides at least the following: i. That the Registrant acknowledges entering into a lawful consumer-broker relationship with the Participant; ii. That all data obtained from the VOW is intended only for the Registrant's personal, non-commercial use; iii. That the Registrant has a bona fide interest in the purchase, sale, or lease of real estate of the type being offered through the VOW; iv. That the Registrant will not copy, redistribute, or retransmit any of the data or information provided; v. That the Registrant acknowledges the MLS's ownership of, and the validity of the MLS's copyright in, the MLS database. After the Registrant has opened for viewing the Terms of Use agreement, a “mouse click” is sufficient to acknowledge agreement to those terms. The Terms of Use Agreement may not impose a financial obligation on the Registrant or create any representation agreement between the Registrant and the Participant. The Terms of Use agreement shall also expressly authorize the MLS, and other MLS Participants or their duly authorized representatives, to access the VOW for the purposes of verifying compliance with MLS rules and monitoring display of Participants' listings by the VOW. d. An agreement entered into at any time between the Participant and Registrant imposing a financial obligation on the Registrant or creating representation of the Registrant by the Participant must be established separately from the Terms of Use, must be prominently labeled as such, and may not be accepted solely by mouse click. 3. A Participant's VOW must prominently display an e-mail address, telephone number, or specific identification of another mode of communication (e.g., live chat) by which a consumer can contact the Participant to ask questions, or get more information, about properties displayed on the VOW. The Participant, or a non-principal broker or sales licensee licensed with the Participant, must be willing and able to respond knowledgeably to inquiries from Registrants about properties within the market area served by that Participant and displayed on the VOW. 4. A Participant's VOW must protect the MLS data from misappropriation by employing reasonable efforts to monitor for and prevent “scraping” or other unauthorized accessing, reproduction, or use of the MLS database. 5. A Participant's VOW must comply with the following additional requirements: a. No VOW shall display listings or property addresses of sellers who have affirmatively directed their listing brokers to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet. The listing broker or agent shall communicate to the MLS that a seller has elected not to permit display of the listing or property address on the Internet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant who operates a VOW may provide to consumers via other delivery mechanisms, such as e-mail, fax, or otherwise, the listings of sellers who have determined not to have the listing for their property displayed on the Internet. b. A Participant who lists a property for a seller who has elected not to have the property listing or the property address displayed on the Internet shall cause the seller to execute a document that conforms to the form attached to this Policy as Appendix A. The Participant shall retain such forms for at least one year from the date they are signed. c. With respect to any VOW that
(i)Allows third-parties to write comments or reviews about particular listings or displays a hyperlink to such comments or reviews in immediate conjunction with particular listings, or
(ii)Displays an automated estimate of the market value of the listing (or hyperlink to such estimate) in immediate conjunction with the listing, the VOW shall disable or discontinue either or both of those features as to the seller's listing at the request of the seller. The listing broker or agent shall communicate to the MLS that the seller has elected to have one or both of these features disabled or discontinued on all Participants' Web sites. Except for the foregoing and subject to subparagraph (d), a Participant's VOW may communicate the Participant's professional judgment concerning any listing. Nothing shall prevent a VOW from notifying its customers that a particular feature has been disabled “at the request of the seller.” d. A VOW shall maintain a means (e.g., e-mail address, telephone number) to receive comments about the accuracy of any data or information that is added by or on behalf of the VOW operator beyond that supplied by the MLS and that relates to a specific property displayed on the VOW. The VOW operator shall correct or remove any false data or information relating to a specific property upon receipt of a communication from the listing broker or listing agent for that property explaining why the data or information is false. However, the VOW operator shall not be obligated to remove or correct any data or information that simply reflects good faith opinion, advice, or professional judgment. e. Each VOW shall refresh MLS data available on the VOW not less frequently than every 3 days. f. Except as provided elsewhere in this Policy or in MLS rules and regulations, no portion of the MLS database may he distributed, provided, or made accessible to any person or entity. g. Every VOW must display a privacy Policy that informs Registrants of the ways in which information obtained from them will be used. h. A VOW may exclude listings from display based only on objective criteria, including, but not limited to, factors such as geography, list price, type of property, cooperative compensation offered by listing broker, or whether the listing broker is a Realtor®. 6. A Participant who intends to operate a VOW must notify the MLS of its intention to establish a VOW and must make the VOW readily accessible to the MLS and to all MLS Participants for purposes of verifying compliance with this Policy and any other applicable MLS rules or policies. 7. A Participant may operate more than one VOW itself or through an AVP. A Participant who operates a VOW itself shall not be precluded from also operating VOWs in conjunction with AVPs. III. Policies Applicable to Multiple Listing Services 1. A Multiple Listing Service shall permit MLS Participants to operate VOWs, or to have VOWs operated for them by AVPs, subject to the requirements of state law and this Policy. 2. An MLS shall, if requested by a Participant, provide basic “downloading” of all MLS non-confidential listing data, including without limitation address fields, listings types, photographs, and links to virtual tours. Confidential data includes only that which Participants are prohibited from providing to customers orally and by all other delivery mechanisms. They include fields containing the information described in paragraph IV(1) of this Policy, provided that sold data (i.e., listing information relating to properties that have sold) shall be deemed confidential and withheld from a download only if the actual sales prices of completed transactions are not accessible from public records. For purposes of this Policy, “downloading” means electronic transmission of data from MLS servers to a Participant's or AVP's server on a persistent basis. An MLS may also offer a transient download. In such case, it shall also, if requested, provide a persistent download, provided that it may impose on users of such download the approximate additional costs incurred by it to do so. 3. This Policy does not require an MLS to establish publicly accessible sites displaying Participants' listings. 4. If an MLS provides a VOW-specific feed, that feed must include all of the non-confidential data included in the feed described in paragraph 2 above except for listings or property addresses of sellers who have elected not to have their listings or addresses displayed on the Internet. 5. An MLS may pass on to those Participants who will download listing information the reasonably estimated costs incurred by the MLS in adding or enhancing its “downloading” capacity to enable such Participants to operate VOWs. 6. An MLS may require that Participants
(1)utilize appropriate security protection, such as firewalls, as long as such requirement does not impose security obligations greater than those employed concurrently by the MLS, and/or
(2)maintain an audit trail of Registrants' activity on the VOW and make that information available to the MLS if the MLS has reason to believe that any VOW has caused or permitted a breach in the security of the data or a violation of applicable MLS rules. 7. An MLS may not prohibit or regulate display of advertising or the identification of entities on VOWs (“branding” or “co-branding”), except to prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising or co-branding. For purposes of this provision, co-branding will be presumed not to be deceptive or misleading if the Participant's logo and contact information (or that of at least one Participant, in the case of a VOW established and operated by or for more than one Participant) is displayed in immediate conjunction with that of every other party, and the logo and contact information of all Participants displayed on the VOW is as large as the logo of the AVP and larger than that of any third party. 8. Except as provided in this Policy, an MLS may not prohibit Participants from enhancing their VOWs by providing information obtained from sources other than the MLS, additional technological services (such as mapping functionality), or information derived from non-confidential MLS data (such as an estimated monthly payment derived from the listed price), or regulate the use or display of such information or technological services on any VOW. 9. Except as provided in generally applicable rules or policies (such as the Realtor® Code of Ethics), an MLS may not restrict the format of data display on a VOW or regulate the appearance of VOWs. 10. Subject to the provisions below, an MLS shall make MLS listing data available to an AVP for the exclusive purpose of operating a VOW on behalf of a Participant. An MLS shall make MLS listing data available to an AVP under the same terms and conditions as those applicable to Participants. No AVP has independent participation rights in the MLS by virtue of its right to receive data on behalf of a Participant, or the right to use MLS data except in connection with operation of a VOW for a Participant. AVP access to MLS data is derivative of the rights of the Participant on whose behalf the AVP is downloading data. a. A Participant, non-principal broker or sales licensee, or AVP may establish the AVP's right to receive and use MLS data by providing to the MLS a writing in which the Participant acknowledges its or its non-principal broker's or sales licensee's selection of the AVP to operate a VOW on its behalf. b. An MLS may not charge an AVP, or a Participant on whose behalf an AVP operates a VOW, more than a Participant that chooses to operate a VOW itself (including any fees or costs associated with a license to receive MLS data, as described in (g), below), except to the extent that the MLS incurs greater costs in providing listing data to the AVP than the MLS incurs in providing listing data to a Participant. c. An MLS may not place data security requirements or restrictions on use of MLS listing data by an AVP that are not also imposed on Participants. d. An MLS must permit an AVP to download listing information in the same manner (e.g., via a RETS feed or via an FTP download), at the same times and with the same frequency that the MLS permits Participants to download listing information. e. An MLS may not refuse to deal directly with an AVP in order to resolve technical problems with the data feed. However, the MLS may require that the Participant on whose behalf the AVP is operating the VOW participate in such communications if the MLS reasonably believes that the involvement of the Participant would be helpful in order to resolve the problem. f. An MLS may not condition an AVP's access to a data feed on the financial terms on which the AVP provides the site for the Participant. g. An MLS may require Participants and AVPs to execute license or similar agreements sufficient to ensure that Participants and AVPs understand and agree that data provided by the MLS may be used only to establish and operate a VOW on behalf of the Participant and not for any other purpose. h. An MLS my not
(i)prohibit an AVP from operating VOWs on behalf of more than One Participant, and several Participants may designate an AVP to operate a single VOW for them collectively,
(ii)limit the number of entities that Participants may designate as AVPs for purposes of operating VOWs, or
(iii)prohibit Participants from designating particular entities as AVPs except that, if an AVP's access has been suspended or terminated by an MLS, that MLS may prevent an entity from being designated an AVP by another Participant during the period of the AVP's suspension or termination. i. Except as stated below, an MLS may not suspend or terminate an AVP's access to data
(a)for reasons other than those that would allow an MLS to suspend or terminate a Participant's access to data, or
(b)without giving the AVP and the associated Participant(s) prior notice and the process set forth in the applicable provisions of the MLS rules for suspension or termination of a Participant's access. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an MLS may immediately terminate an AVP's access to data
(a)if the AVP is no longer designated to provide VOW services to any Participant,
(b)if the Participant for whom the AVP operates a VOW ceases to maintain its status with the MLS,
(c)if the AVP has downloaded data in a manner not authorized for Participants and that hinders the ability of Participants to download data, or
(d)if the associated Participant or AVP has failed to make required payments to the MLS in accordance with the MLS's generally applicable payment policies and practices. 11. An MLS may not prohibit, restrict, or impede a Participant from referring Registrants to any person or from obtaining a fee for such referral. IV. Requirements That MLSs May Impose on the Operation of VOWs and Participants 1. An MLS may impose any, all, or none of the following requirements on VOWs but may impose them only to the extent that equivalent requirements are imposed on Participants' use of MLS listing data in providing brokerage services via all other delivery mechanisms: a. A Participant's VOW may not make available for search by or display to Registrants the following data intended exclusively for other MLS Participants and their affiliated licensees: i. Expired, withdrawn, or pending listings. ii. Sold data unless the actual sales price of completed transactions is accessible from public records. iii. The compensation offered to other MLS Participants. iv. The type of listing agreement, i.e., exclusive right to sell or exclusive agency. v. The seller(s) and occupant(s) name(s), phone number(s) and e-mail address(es), where available. vi. Instructions or remarks intended for cooperating brokers only, such as those regarding showing or security of the listed property. b. The content of MLS data that is displayed on a VOW may not be changed from the content as it is provided in the MLS. MLS data may be augmented with additional data or information not otherwise prohibited from display as long as the source of such other data or information is clearly identified. This requirement does not restrict the format of MLS data display on VOWs or display of fewer than all of the listings or fewer authorized data fields. c. There shall be a notice on all MLS data displayed indicating that the data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed accurate by the MLS. A Participant's VOW may also include other appropriate disclaimers necessary to protect the Participant and/or the MLS from liability. d. Any listing displayed on a VOW shall identify the name of the listing firm in a readily visible color, and reasonably prominent location, and in typeface not smaller than the median typeface used in the display of listing data. e. The number of current or, if permitted, sold listings that Registrants may view, retrieve, or download on or from a VOW in response to an inquiry may be limited to a reasonable number. Such number shall be determined by the MLS, but in no event may the limit be fewer than 100 listings or 5% of the listings in the MLS, whichever is less. f. Any listing displayed on a VOW shall identify the name of the listing agent. 2. An MLS may also impose the following other requirements on the operation of VOWs: a. Participants displaying other brokers' listings obtained from other sources, e.g., other MLSs, non-participating brokers, etc. shall display the source from which each such listing was obtained. b. A maximum period, no shorter than 90 days and determined by the MLS, during which Registrants' passwords are valid, after which such passwords must be changed or reconfirmed. 3. An MLS may not prohibit Participants from downloading and displaying or framing listings obtained from other sources, e.g., other MLSs or from brokers not participating in that MLS, etc., but may require either that
(i)such information be searched separately from listings obtained from other sources, including other MLSs, or
(ii)if such other sources are searched in conjunction with searches of the listings available on the VOW, require that any display of listings from other sources identify such other source. Effective Date MLSs have until not later than [90 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT] to adopt rules implementing the foregoing policies and to comply with the provisions of section III above, and
(2)Participants shall have until not later than 180 days following adoption and implementation of rules by an MLS in which they participate to cause their VOW to comply with such rules. See Appendix A for Seller Opt-Out Form. Appendix A. Seller Opt-Out Form 1. [Check one] a. [Check here] I have advised my broker or sales agent that I do not want the listed property to be displayed on the Internet; or b. [Check here] I have advised my broker or sales agent that I do not want the address of the listed property to be displayed on the Internet. 2. I understand and acknowledge that, if I have selected option a, consumers who conduct searches for listings on the Internet will not see information about the listed property in response to their search. initials of seller Exhibit B (Statement of MLS Policy) Statement 7.9. Definition of MIS “Participant” The term “Participant” in a Board Multiple Listing Service is defined, as follows: “Where the term REALTOR® is used in this explanation of policy in connection with the word ‘Member’ or the word ‘Participant’, it shall be construed to mean the REALTOR® principal or principals, of this or any other Board, or a firm comprised of REALTOR® principals participating in a Multiple Listing Service owned and operated by the Board. Participatory rights shall be held by an individual principal broker unless determined by the Board or MLS to be held by a firm. It shall not be construed to include individuals other than a principal or principals who are REALTOR® Members of this or any other Board, or who are legally entitled to participate without Board membership. However, under no circumstances is any individual or firm, regardless of membership status, entitled to MLS ‘Membership' or ‘Participation’ unless they hold a current, valid real estate broker's license and are capable of offering and accepting offers or accept cooperation and compensation to and from other Participants or are licensed or certified by an appropriate state regulatory agency to engage in the appraisal of real property. Use of information developed by or published by a Board Multiple Listing Service is strictly limited to the activities authorized under a Participant's licensure(s) or certification and unauthorized uses are prohibited. Further, none of the foregoing is intended to convey ‘Participation’ or ‘Membership’ or any right of access to information developed by or published by a Board Multiple Listing Service where access to such information is prohibited by law. Additionally, the foregoing does not prohibit Board Multiple Listing Services, at their discretion, from categorizing non-principal brokers, sales licensees, licensed and certified appraisers and others affiliated with the MLS ‘Members’ or ‘Participants’ as ‘users’ or ‘subscribers’ and, holding such individuals personally subject to the rules and regulations and any other governing provisions of the MLS and to discipline for violations thereof. MLSs may, as a matter of local determination, limit participatory rights to individual principal brokers, or to their firms, and to licensed or certified appraisers, who maintain an office or Internet presence from which they are available to represent real estate sellers, buyers, lessors or lessees or from which they provide appraisal services. (Amended 5/02) “Where the terms ‘subscriber’ or ‘user’ are used in connection with a Multiple Listing Service owned or operated by a Board of REALTOR®, they refer to non-principal brokers, sales licensees, and licensed and certified real estate appraisers affiliated with an MLS Participant and may, as a matter of local option, also include a Participant's affiliated unlicensed administrative and clerical staff, personal assistants, and individuals seeking licensure or certification as real estate appraisers provided that any such individual is under the direct supervision of an MLS Participant or the Participant's licensed designee. If such access is available to unlicensed or uncertified individuals, their access is subject to the rules and regulations, the payment of applicable fees and charges (if any), and the limitations and restrictions of state law. None of the foregoing shall diminish the Participant's ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules and regulations of the MLS by all individuals affiliated with the Participant. (Adopted 4/92) “Under the ‘Board of Choice’ policy, MLS participatory rights shall be available to any REALTOR® (principal) or any firm comprised of REALTORS® (principals) irrespective of where they hold primary membership subject only to their agreement to abide by any MLS rules or regulations; agreement to arbitrate disputes with other Participants; and payment of any MLS dues, fees, and charges” Participatory rights granted under Board of Choice do not confer voting privileges or eligibility for office as an MLS committee member, officer, or director, except as granted at the discretion of the local Board and/or MLS. (Amended 5/97) The universal access to services component of Board of Choice is to be interpreted as requiring that MLS Participatory rights be available to REALTOR® principals, or to firms comprised of REALTOR® principals, irrespective of where primary or secondary membership is held. This does not preclude an MLS from assessing REALTORS® not holding primary or secondary membership locally fees, dues, or charges that exceed those or, alternatively, that are less than those charged Participants holding such memberships locally or additional fees to offset actual expenses incurred in providing MLS services such as courier charges, long distance phone charges, etc., or for charging any Participant specific fees for optional additional services. (Amended 11/96) None of the foregoing shall be construed as requiring a Board to grant MLS participatory rights, under Board of Choice, where such rights have been previously terminated by action of that Board's Board of Directors.” (Adopted 11/95) (Model MLS rules) Section 3—Participation: Any REALTOR® of this or any other Board who is a principal, partner, corporate officer, or branch office manager acting on behalf of a principal, without further qualification, except as otherwise stipulated in these bylaws, shall be eligible to participate in Multiple Listing upon agreeing in writing to conform to the rules and regulations thereof and to pay the costs incidental thereto.* However, under no circumstances is any individual or firm, regardless of membership status, entitled to Multiple Listing Service “membership” or “participation” unless they hold a current, valid real estate broker's license and are capable of offering and accepting offers or accept compensation to and from other Participants or are licensed or certified by an appropriate state regulatory agency to engage in the appraisal of real property.** Use of information developed by or published by a Board Multiple Listing Service is strictly limited to the activities authorized under a Participant's licensure(s) or certification and unauthorized uses are prohibited. Further, none of the foregoing is intended to convey “participation” or “membership” or any right of access to information developed by or published by a Board Multiple Listing Service where access to such information is prohibited by law. (Amended 11/96) Note: Mere possession of a broker's license is not sufficient to qualify for MLS participation. Rather, the requirement that an individual or firm ‘offers or accepts cooperation and compensation’ means that the Participant actively endeavors during the operation of its real estate business to list real property of the type listed on the MLS and/or to accept offers of cooperation and compensation made by listing brokers or agents in the MLS. “Actively” means on a continual and on-going basis during the operation of the Participant's real estate business. The “actively” requirement is not intended to preclude MLS participation by a Participant or potential Participant that operates a real estate business on a part time, seasonal, or similarly time-limited basis or that has its business interrupted by periods of relative inactivity occasioned by market conditions. Similarly, the requirement is not intended to deny MLS participation to a Participant or potential Participant who has not achieved a minimum number of transactions despite good faith efforts. Nor is it intended to permit an MLS to deny participation based on the level of service provided by the Participant or potential Participant as long as the level of service satisfies state law. The key is that the Participant or potential Participant actively endeavors to make or accept offers of cooperation and compensation with respect to properties of the type that are listed on the MLS in which participation is sought. This requirement does not permit an MLS to deny participation to a Participant or potential Participant that operates a Virtual Office Website (“VOW”) (including a VOW that the Participant uses to refer customers to other Participants) if the Participant or potential Participant actively endeavors to make or accept offers of cooperation and compensation. An MLS may evaluate whether a Participant “actively endeavors during the operation of its real estate business” to “offer or accept cooperation and compensation” only if the MLS has a reasonable basis to believe that the Participant or potential Participant is in fact not doing so. The membership requirement shall be applied on a nondiscriminatory manner to all Participants and potential Participants. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division United States of America, Plaintiff, v. National Association of Realtors®, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05 C 5140 Judge Kennelly. Competitive Impact Statement Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. l6(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceedings *Overview.* The United States brought this lawsuit against Defendant National Association of Realtors® (“NAR”) on September 8, 2005, to stop NAR from violating section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by its suppression of competition from real estate brokers who use the Internet to deliver real estate brokerage services. NAR's policies singled out these innovative brokers and denied them equal access to the for-sale listings that are the lifeblood of competition in real estate markets. The settlement will eliminate NAR's discriminatory policies and restore even-handed treatment for all brokers, including those who use the Internet in innovative ways. *Virtual Office Websites (“VOWs ”).* The brokers who have been restrained by NAR's policies operate password-protected websites through which they deliver brokerage services to consumers. NAR has referred to these websites as “virtual office websites” or “VOWs.” As discussed below and in the United States' October 4, 2005, Amended Complaint, brokers who use VOWs (“VOW brokers”) can operate more productively than other brokers, providing high quality brokerage services efficiently to consumers. *Defendant NAR and MLSs.* NAR is a trade association whose membership includes both traditional, bricks-and-mortar real estate brokers and innovative brokers, such as those who operate VOWs. NAR promulgates rules for the operation of the approximately 800 multiple listing services (“MLSs”) affiliated with NAR. MLSs are joint ventures of virtually all real estate brokers in each local or regional area. MLSs aggregate information about all properties in the areas they serve that are offered for sale through brokers. *NAR's Challenged Policies.* On May 17, 2003, NAR adopted its “VOW Policy,” which contained rules that obstructed brokers' abilities to use VOWs to serve their customers, as described below in Section II. After an investigation, the United States prepared to file a complaint challenging this Policy. On September 8, 2005, NAR repealed its VOW Policy and replaced it with its Internet Listings Display Policy (“ILD Policy”). NAR hoped that this change would forestall the United States' challenge to its policies. NAR's ILD Policy, however, continued to discriminate against VOW brokers. As part of its adoption of the ILD Policy, NAR also revised and reinterpreted its MLS membership rule, which would have excluded sonic brokers who used VOWs, as detailed below in Section II. (NAR's VOW and ILD Policies, including its membership rule revision and reinterpretation, are referred to collectively in this Competitive Impact Statement as NAR's “Challenged Policies.”) As an association of competitors with market power, NAR's adoption of policies that suppress new and efficient competition to the detriment of consumers violates section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. *The Complaint.* On September 8, 2005, the day NAR adopted its ILD Policy, the United States filed its Complaint. The United States filed an Amended Complaint on October 4, 2005, that explicitly addressed the ILD Policy and membership rule revision and reinterpretation. The Amended Complaint alleges that NAR's adoption of the Challenged Policies constitutes a contract, combination, and conspiracy by and between NAR and its members which unreasonably restrains competition in brokerage service markets throughout the United States, in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. In the Amended Complaint, the United States asks the Court to order NAR to stop violating the law. The United States did not seek monetary damages or fines; the law does not provide for these remedies in a case of this nature. *Motion to Dismiss.* NAR filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that, because NAR did not restrain brokers by compelling them to use the “opt-out” provisions of the Challenged Policies (discussed below in section IIC), those provisions did not constitute actionable restraints of trade. NAR also sought dismissal on two procedural grounds. On November 27, 2006, the Court issued an opinion denying NAR's motion. The Court found that the appropriate analysis under Section 1 is not whether individual market actors are restrained but instead whether competition is restrained. 1 The Court also rejected NAR's procedural arguments. 2 1 See *United States* v. *NAR,* No. 05-C-5140, 2006-2 Trade Cas. ¶ 75,499, 2006 WL 3434263, at * 12-14 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2006). 2 *Id.* at * 6-11 & 15. *Course of the Litigation.* Discovery began in December 2005 and continued through 2006 and 2007. The case was scheduled for trial on July 7, 2008. *Proposed Settlement.* On May 27, 2008, six weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, the United States and NAR reached a settlement. The United States filed a Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment that are designed to eliminate the likely anticompetitive effects of NAR's Challenged Policies. The proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, requires NAR to repeal its VOW Policy and its ILD Policy and to adopt and apply new rules that do not discriminate against brokers who use VOWs to provide brokerage services to their customers. The United States and NAR have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless the United States withdraws its consent. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that this Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, and enforce the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof. II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violation of the Antitrust Laws A. Description of Competition and Innovation Enabled by VOWs In many respects, most VOW brokers operate just like their more traditional competitors. They hold brokers' licenses in the states in which they operate, they ordinarily are Realtor members of NAR, they participate in their local MLS, they tour homes with potential buyer customers and guide those customers through the negotiating, contracting, and closing process, and they derive revenues from commissions earned in connection with real estate transactions. 3 3 The real estate licensing laws of most states allow real estate professionals to be licensed as either brokers or as agents or sales associates. To offer real estate brokerage services, a person licensed as an agent or sales associate must affiliate with and be subject to the supervision of a person who holds a broker's license. See, e.g., 225 ILCS 454/1-5. These VOW brokers differ from other brokers in how they use the Internet to provide brokerage services. VOW brokers use primarily their Web sites, rather than the efforts of their agents, to educate potential buyers about the market. This service necessarily involves—as it does with brokers who operate in a more traditional fashion—providing those MLS listings to buyer customers that meet their expressed needs and interests. NAR's MLS rules permit brokers to “reproduce from the MLS compilation and distribute to prospective purchasers” information about properties in which the purchaser might have an interest. *See* NAR, *Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy,* “Model Rules & Regulations for an MLS Operated as a Committee of an Association of Realtors®,” § 12.2 (21st ed. 2008). Rather than providing this information to prospective buyers by hand delivery, mail, fax, or e-mail—the delivery methods historically used by brokers VOW brokers deliver listings over the Internet. 4 4 As the court found in *Austin Board of Realtors* v. *E-Realty, Inc.,* No. 00-CA-154, 2000 WL 34239114, at *4 (W. D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2000), “all * * * methods of distribution” of listings, including the Internet, “are equivalent” and should be treated equally under MLS rules. Until it began developing its VOW Policy, NAR agreed with this position. For instance, on January 29, 2001, a top NAR official stated in a letter to the president of eRealty (a VOW broker) that eRealty's distribution of MLS listings through its VOW was “in compliance with” MLS rules governing the provision of MLS listings to prospective buyers. NAR also published a white paper in December 2001 in which it described VOWs as an “emerging, authorized use of MLS current listing data,” and stated that brokers using VOWs are subject to the same MLS rules governing the dissemination of listings to potential buyers that are applicable to all other brokers. The same official reiterated the point in a March 8, 2002, interview, stating that NAR's rules “don't discriminate between methods of delivery.” VOWs help brokers operate more efficiently and increase the quality of services they provide. By enabling consumers to search for and retrieve relevant MLS listings, VOW brokers can operate more efficiently than other brokers. Because customers are educating themselves without the broker's expenditure of time, a VOW broker can expend less time, energy, and resources educating his or her customers. Operating a VOW can also enhance broker competitiveness in working with home seller clients by allowing the broker to provide detailed information to both potential and active seller clients about the apparent interests of buyers who are searching for homes in the seller's neighborhood. A study conducted in connection with this case showed that one sizeable VOW broker, for example, was able to generate many more transactions per agent (controlling for years of agent experience) than the traditional brokers it competed against. With lower costs and increased productivity, some VOW brokers have offered discounted commission rates to their seller clients and rebates to their buyer customers. 5 VOW brokers have already delivered tens of millions of dollars in financial benefits directly to their customers. Another study conducted in connection with this case revealed evidence consistent with a finding that the growth of a VOW broker that offered discounts led a sizeable traditional competitor to reduce its commissions to consumers. 5 Prospective buyers frequently do not enter contractual relationships with the broker from whom they receive brokerage services and, as such, are considered “customers,” rather than “clients,” of the broker. Innovative brokers with VOWs have enhanced the consumer experience by offering tools and information that allow consumers to approach the purchase of a home well informed about all aspects of the markets they are considering. VOW brokers not only provide their customers access to up-to-date MLS listings information, but also offer mapping and property-comparison tools and provide school district information, crime statistics, and other neighborhood information for consumers to consider as they educate themselves regarding the most important purchase in the lives of most Americans. Many VOW brokers also allow customers to maintain a personal portfolio of properties they are monitoring, with the VOWs automatically updating those listings as their price or status changes. Of course, many traditional brokers provide neighborhood and other similar information to their customers, and some even provide such information on Internet Web sites. VOWs can differ, however, in the quantity and quality of information that they provide. VOW brokers offer their customers complete and up-to-date information and often focus on information most valuable to prospective buyers, identifying price reductions and the number of days a property has been on the market and providing information about comparable recent sales. Customers of VOW brokers can obtain information at their own pace, on their own time, and in the form in which they are most interested in receiving it. Some VOW brokers have established brokerage businesses that focus solely on the high technology aspects of brokerage services that can be delivered over the Internet. Like other VOW brokers, these “referral VOWs” educate prospective buyers about the market in which they are considering a purchase by providing buyers MLS listings and other information on a VOW. When the buyer is ready to tour a home, the referral VOW broker can direct the buyer to brokers or agents who specialize in guiding the buyer on tours of homes and advising them during the negotiating, contracting, and closing process. In some instances, referral VOW brokers have obtained a referral fee (contingent on closing) for delivering educated buyer customers to the brokers or agents who received the referrals. Some referral VOW brokers have offered commission rebates or other financial benefits to their customers. B. Description of the Defendant and Its Activities Chicago-based MAR is a trade association that establishes and enforces policies and professional standards for its over one million real estate professional members and 1,400 local and state Boards or Associations of Realtors® (“Member Boards”). NAR promulgates rules governing the operation of the approximately 800 MLSs that are affiliated with NAR through their ownership or operation by NAR's Member Boards. 6 In order to encourage adherence to its policies, NAR can deny coverage under its errors and omissions insurance (i.e., professional liability insurance) policy to any Member Board that maintains MLS rules not in compliance with NAR's policies. 6 There are approximately 1,000 MLSs in the United States, approximately 800 of which are affiliated with NAR and subject to NAR's rules. The rules of the remaining approximately 200 MLSs are not at issue in this lawsuit, although, as a practical matter, many MLSs that are not affiliated with NAR adopt rules that confirm substantially to NAR's. Some non-NAR MLSs, such as the MLS serving the Columbia, South Carolina, area and the MLS serving the Hilton Head, South Carolina, area, adopted and maintained rules that have been the subject of antitrust enforcement. On May 2, 2008, the United States brought an antitrust action against the MLS in Columbia alleging that its rules restrain competition among real estate brokers in that area and likely harm consumers. *See* Complaint in *United States* v. *Consolidated Multiple Listing Service, Inc.,* No 3:08-cv-0l786-SB (D.S.C. May 2, 2008), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f232800/232803.htm.* The United States challenged similar allegedly anticompetitive rules imposed by the MLS in Hilton Head, South Carolina, also not affiliated with NAR. *See* Complaint in *United States* v. *Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc.,* No. 9:07-cv-03435-SB (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2007), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/ atr/cases/f226800/226869.htm.* The MLS in Hilton Head agreed to settle the case by repealing the challenged rules and agreeing to other conduct restrictions, and the court entered the Final Judgment in the case on May 28, 2008. See Final Judgment in *United States* v. *Multiple Listing Service of Hilton Head Island, Inc.,* No. 9:07-cv-03435-SB (D.S.C. May 28, 2008), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f233900/233901.htm.* MLSs are joint ventures among virtually all real estate brokers operating in local or regional areas. 7 MAR's MLS rules require its members to submit to the MLS, generally within two to three days of obtaining a listing, information about each property listed for sale through a broker member. By doing so, the broker promotes his or her seller client's listing to all other brokers in the MLS, who can provide information about the listing to their buyer customers. Listing brokers create incentives for other MLS members to try to find buyers for their listed properties by submitting with each new listing an “offer of cooperation and compensation,” identifying the amount (usually specified as a percentage of the listing broker's commission) that the listing broker will pay to any other broker who finds a buyer for the property. 7 Many MLSs draw brokers and their listed properties from a single local community. Others are substantially larger, with some covering entire states and others—such as Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc., which serves the District of Columbia, and parts of the states of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania—serving multi state regions. As the Amended Complaint alleges, the relevant geographic markets in which brokers compete are local and normally no larger than the service area of the MLS or MLSs in which they participate. Brokers regard participation in their local MLS to be critical to their ability to compete with other brokers for home sellers and buyers. By participating in the MLS, brokers can promise their seller clients that the information about the seller's property can be immediately made available to virtually all other brokers in the area. Brokers who work with buyers can likewise promise their buyer customers access to the widest possible array of properties listed for sale through brokers. An MLS is thus a market-wide joint venture of competitors that possesses substantial market power: To compete successfully, a broker must be a member; and to be a member, a broker must adhere to any restrictions that the MLS imposes. C. Description of the Alleged Violation 1. The Challenged Policies NAR's Challenged Policies discriminate against and restrain competition from brokers who use VOWs. In its Challenged Policies, NAR denied VOW brokers the ability to use their VOWs to provide customers access to the same MLS listings that the customer could obtain from all other brokers by other delivery methods. NAR did so by allowing a listing broker to “opt out” and keep his or her client's listings from being displayed on a competitor's VOW. On May 17, 2003, NAR adopted its “VOW Policy.” As the Amended Complaint alleges, the VOW Policy, most significantly, allowed brokers to opt out of VOWs, withholding their seller-clients' listings from display on VOWs. The opt-out provisions discriminated against VOW brokers because NAR's rules do not otherwise permit one broker to dictate how competitors can convey his or her listings to customers. The VOW Policy permitted opt out either against all VOW brokers (“blanket”) or against a particular VOW broker (“selective”). The Amended Complaint also alleges that the VOW Policy's “anti-referral” rule restrained competition by prohibiting VOW brokers from receiving any payment for referring prospective buyer customers to other brokers. The prospect that brokers could use VOWs to support referral-based businesses was a source of industry antipathy to VOWs, and NAR's rules singled out VOW brokers for a ban on referring customers for a fee. NAR's VOW Policy, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, also restrained competition from VOW brokers by prohibiting them from selling advertising on pages of their VOWs on which the VOW broker displayed any listings, and by permitting MLSs to degrade the data they provide to VOWs, thus preventing the use of popular technological features offered by many VOW brokers. NAR repealed its VOW Policy and replaced it with its ILD Policy on September 8, 2005, the day the United States filed its initial Complaint. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, NAR's ILD Policy continued to discriminate against VOW brokers by permitting their competitors a blanket opt out where they could withhold their listings from display on all VOWs. 8 Although the ILD Policy did not include an explicit anti-referral rule, NAR revised and reinterpreted its rule on MLS membership to prevent brokers who operate referral VOWs from becoming members of the MLS and obtaining access to MLS listings. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the ILD Policy continued to permit MLSs to downgrade the data they provide to VOWs and to restrict VOW brokers' co-branding or advertising relationships with third parties. 8 NAR did delete from its ILD Policy its rule allowing brokers to selectively opt out against particular VOW brokers. 2. Effects of the Challenged Policies As discussed above, NAR's rules permit brokers to show prospective buyers all MLS listings in which the buyers might have an interest. For most brokers, this means that they can respond to a request from a buyer customer by delivering responsive listings by whatever delivery method the broker and customer choose. NAR's opt-out provisions deny this right only if the method of delivery selected by the broker and the customer is a VOW. Thus, NAR's rules restrain VOW-operating brokers from competing in a way that is efficient and desired by many customers. Even if no broker uses the opt-out device, its existence renders a VOW broker unable to promise customers access to all relevant MLS listings, materially disadvantaging brokers who use a VOW to compete. When opt out occurs, a VOW broker is further disadvantaged because it cannot deliver complete MLS listings to customers through its VOW. Finally, with the threat of opt outs constantly hanging over it, any VOW broker contemplating a pro-consumer initiative would have to weigh the prospect of an angry response from its incumbent competitors. Opt outs were an empirical reality. Although the United States' investigation became public just a few months after NAR adopted its VOW Policy, the United States discovered over fifty instances of broker opt outs under a wide variety of circumstances in fourteen diverse markets. Brokers opted out of VOWs in large markets (e.g., Detroit and Cleveland), medium markets (e.g., Des Moines), and small markets (e.g., Emporia (Kansas), Hays (Kansas), and York (Pennsylvania)). In some markets (Emporia and Hays), virtually all brokers opted out. In others, only one or a few opted out (e.g., Detroit, York, Maine). Opt outs occurred in a market with one dominant broker (Des Moines), in markets with only a small number of broker competitors (Emporia and Hays), and in markets with hundreds of brokers (Detroit). In some markets (e.g., Des Moines, Detroit, Cleveland, York, and Jackson (Wyoming)), large brokers opted out. In others (e.g., Marathon (Florida) and Hudson (New York)), only relatively small brokers opted out. Brokers opted out in markets in which price competition is highly restricted by the state (Kansas, which prohibits brokers from providing commission rebates to home buyers), as well as in markets in which the state does not restrict such price competition (Michigan). Opt outs occurred in circumstances that imply they were independent business decisions by the opting-out brokers (e.g., Detroit) and in circumstances in which opt-out forms were filled out by almost all brokers in the same room at the same time (Emporia). NAR's Challenged Policies also obstruct the operation of referral VOWs. NAR's VOW Policy prohibited referral fees explicitly and directly. NAR's 2005 modification to the requirements of MLS membership denied MLS membership and of greatest significance to a referral VOW access to MLS data to any broker whose business focused exclusively on educating customers on a VOW and referring those customers to other brokers to receive other in-person brokerage services. Each of these policies prevents two brokers from working together in an innovative and efficient way, with a VOW broker attracting new business and educating potential buyers about the market, and the other broker guiding the buyer through home tours and the negotiating, contracting, and closing process. As discussed above, NAR's Challenged Policies also permit MLSs to downgrade the MLS data feed provided to VOW brokers, which limits the consumer-friendly features VOW brokers could provide through their VOWs. The Challenged Policies also allow MLSs to prohibit VOW brokers from establishing some advertising or co-branding relationships with third parties, limiting the freedom of VOW brokers to operate their businesses as they desire and enabling MLSs (which are controlled by a VOW broker's competitors) to micromanage the appearance of brokers' VOWs. 3. The Challenged Policies Violate the Antitrust Laws NAR's Challenged Policies violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints on competition. The Challenged Policies were the product of an agreement among a group of competitors (the members of NAR) mandating how brokers could use VOWs to compete and unreasonably restraining competition from VOW brokers. Competition from VOW brokers had posed a threat to the established order in the real estate industry. Yet it was clear from prior litigation that antitrust law would not allow incumbent brokers simply to prevent VOW brokers from providing any listings to customers through their VOWs. *See Austin Board of Realtors* v. * e-Realty, Inc.,* No. 00-CA-154, 2000 WL 34239114 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2000). Instead, NAR's Challenged Policies restrained competition from VOW brokers by denying them full access to MLS listings and restricting how VOW brokers could do business. While an MLS, like other joint ventures with market power, can have reasonable membership restrictions related to a legitimate, procompetitive purpose, it cannot create rules that unreasonably impede competition among brokers and harm consumers. See *United States* v. *Realty Multi-List,* 629 F.2d 1351, 1371 (5th Cir. 1980). NAR's Challenged Policies restrain competition because they dictate how the MLS's broker-members could compete specifically, restricting how they could compete using a VOW. *See id,* at 1383-85 (finding MLS rule precluding part-time brokerage to be unlawful); *Cantor* v. Multiple *Listing Serv. of Dutchess County, Inc.,* 568 F. Supp. 424, 430-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (finding that MLS yard sign restriction violated section 1 of the Sherman Act because it “substantially impair[ed] [the plaintiffs'] freedom to conduct their businesses as they see fit” and “vitiated any competitive advantage which plaintiffs endeavored to obtain” through association with a national franchisor); see also National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs, 435 U.S. 679, 695
(1978)(condemning trade association ban on competitive bidding by members). Similarly, NAR's Challenged Policies restrain competition because they impede the operations of a particularly efficient class of competitors: VOW brokers. See Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1159 (3d Cir. 1993) (upholding verdict against railroads that “block[ed] the entry of low cost competitors”); see also *RE/MAX* v. *Realty One, Inc.,* 173 F.3d 995, 1014 (6th Cir. 1999) (upholding Sherman Act § 1 claim where competitors “impose[d] additional costs” on innovative entrant). NAR's Challenged Policies also restrain competition by denying consumers the full MLS listings information (including valuable information such as sold data and data fields such as days on market) that consumers want. See *FTC* v. *Indiana Fed'n of Dentists,* 476 U.S. 447, 457, 462
(1986)(“The Federation's collective activities resulted in the denial of the information the customers requested in the form they requested it, and forced them to choose between acquiring that information in a more costly manner or forgoing it altogether * * *.The Federation is not entitled to pre-empt the working of the market by deciding for itself that its customers do not need that which they demand.”) Moreover, NAR's Challenged Policies constitute an unreasonable restraint on competition because they produced no procompetitive benefits that justified the restraints. Although NAR claimed that the Challenged Policies were essential to the continued existence of MLSs, those MLSs without the Challenged Policies functioned just as well without them. Given the market power of the MLS, brokers believe it would amount to economic suicide for them to leave the MLS. D. Harm From the Alleged Violation Taken together, NAR's Challenged Policies obstruct innovative brokers' use of efficient, Internet-based tools to provide brokerage services to customers and clients. The Challenged Policies inhibit VOW brokers from achieving the operating efficiencies that VOWs can make available and likely diminish the high-quality and low-priced services offered to consumers by VOW brokers. The result is that the Challenged Policies, products of agreements among competitor brokers, likely would deter, delay, or prevent the benefits of innovation and competition from reaching consumers, and thus violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. III. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment The proposed Final Judgment embodies the fundamental principle that an association of competing brokers, operating an MLS, cannot use the aggregated power of the MLS to discriminate against a particular method of competition (in this case, VOWs). The proposed Final Judgment will end the competitive harm resulting from NAR's Challenged Policies and will allow consumers to benefit from the enhanced competition that VOW brokers can provide. The proposed Final Judgment requires NAR to repeal its VOW and ILD Policies and to replace them with a “Modified VOW Policy” (attached to the proposed Final Judgment as Exhibit A) that makes it clear that brokers can operate VOWs without interference from their rivals. 9 With respect to any issues concerning the operation of VOWs that are not explicitly addressed by the Modified VOW Policy, the proposed Final Judgment's general nondiscrimination provisions apply. 10 9 See proposed Final Judgment, ¶¶ V.A-V.D. Under the Modified VOW Policy, with the consent of their supervising broker, agents and sales associates are also expressly permitted to operate VOWs. Brokers cannot agree, by MLS rule or otherwise, to ban VOWs operated by agents or sales associates. *See* Modified VOW Policy, ¶ I.1.b. 10 See proposed Final Judgment, ¶¶ IV.A, IV.B, & IV.C; *see also id.,* ¶ V.F (requiring NAR to deny insurance coverage to any Member Board that maintains rules at odds with ¶ IV of the proposed Final Judgment). The Modified VOW Policy does not allow brokers to opt out and withhold their clients' listings from VOW brokers. 11 This change eliminates entirely the most egregious impediment to VOWs that was contained in the Challenged Policies. 12 Under the Modified VOW Policy, the MLS must provide to a VOW broker for display on the VOW all MLS listings information that brokers are permitted to provide to customers by all other methods of delivery. 13 11 See Modified VOW Policy, ¶ I.4. 12 The Modified VOW Policy does allow an individual home seller to direct that information about his or her own home not appear on any Internet Web sites, *id.,* ¶ II.5.a, recognizing the legitimate interests of a seller to protect his or her privacy and not to expose information about his or her property or the fact that it is on the market to the public on the Internet. It also allows a home seller to request that a VOW broker who permits customers to provide written reviews of properties disable that feature as to the seller's listing. *Id.,* ¶ II.5.c. Such comments—which can be anonymous—have no exact analogue in the bricks-and-mortar world. Unlike books, music, or other consumer goods, reviews of which can provide useful information to other potential purchasers of the same items, the uniqueness of each individual home creates an opportunity for an interested buyer (or his or her broker) to attempt to manipulate the market by providing a negative review in hopes of deterring other buyers from visiting or making an offer on the home. An individual home seller is also permitted under the Modified VOW Policy to request that an automated home valuation feature provided by a VOW broker be disabled as to the seller's individual property, although the VOW broker is permitted to state on the VOW that the seller requested that this type of information not be presented on the VOW about his or her property. *See Id.* Though such valuations might be provided in a bricks-and-mortar environment, they would not likely be provided without evaluation, comment, or input from an agent or sales associate. The Modified VOW Policy also provides a mechanism for sellers to correct any false information about their property that a VOW adds, *id.,* ¶ II.5.d, consistent with the general responsibility of any broker (VOW or otherwise) to present accurate information. 13 *See id.,* ¶ III.2. The information that MLSs must provide to VOW brokers for display on their VOWs includes information about properties that have sold (except in areas where the actual sales prices of homes is not accessible from public records) and all other information that brokers can provide to customers by any method, including by oral communications. *Id.* The Modified VOW Policy that NAR must adopt under the proposed Final Judgment also permits brokers to operate referral VOWs. It expressly prohibits MLSs from impeding VOW brokers from referring customers to other brokers for compensation. 14 It also provides two avenues by which a broker desiring to serve customers through a referral VOW may do so: As an “Affiliated VOW Partner” (“AVP”) and as a member who directly serves some customers. 14 *Id.,* ¶III.11. Under the Modified VOW Policy, a broker who desires to operate a referral business can partner as an AVP with a network of brokers and agents to whom the AVP will ultimately refer educated buyer customers who are ready to tour homes and receive in-person brokerage services, 15 The Modified VOW Policy requires MLSs to provide complete MLS listings information to a broker designated by another broker to be an AVP that will operate a VOW on the designating broker's behalf. 16 The MLS must provide listings information to the AVP on the same terms and conditions on which the MLS would provide listings to the broker who designated the AVP to operate the VOW. 17 This provision will allow referral VOWs to partner with brokers or agents, obtain access to MLS data to operate their referral VOWs, and provide the efficiencies that come from operating a VOW to the brokers and agents with whom they partner. 15 Nothing in the Modified VOW Policy requires an AVP to hold a broker's license. An unlicensed technology company would be permitted under the Modified VOW Policy to host a VOW for a broker or brokers (or for one or more agents or sales associates, with the consent of their supervising brokers). When a licensed broker operates VOWs as an AVP in conjunction with other brokers (or their agents or sales associates), the AVP can perform services for which a broker's license may be required, including answering questions for customers who register on the VOW and referring customers to the brokers and agents or sales associates for whom the AVP operates the VOWs. *See,* e.g., 225 ILCS 454/1-10 (describing the activities for which a broker's license is required in Illinois, including “assist[ing] or direct[ing] in procuring or referring of prospects”). 16 Modified VOW Policy, ¶¶ I.1.a & III.10. An AVP's rights to obtain listings information from the MLS is derivative of the rights of the brokers for whom the AVP is operating VOWs. Id., ¶III.10. The AVP would not itself be an MLS member entitled to MLS access directly. 17 *Id.,* ¶ III.10. Under the proposed Final Judgment, a broker who works directly with some buyers and sellers, but who also wants to operate a VOW and focus on referrals, can become a member of the MLS and use MLS data as a member, including for its referral VOW. The Final Judgment permits NAR's Member Boards to implement the new requirements for MLS membership that NAR originally adopted with its ILD Policy, 18 but an interpretive Note (see Exhibit B to the proposed Final Judgment) explains that the new membership rule is not to be interpreted to restrain VOW competition. 19 18 Proposed Final Judgment, ¶ VI.A. 19 Under the interpretative Note included in Exhibit B to the proposed Final Judgment, if a VOW broker actively endeavors to obtain some seller clients for whom it will market properties or some buyer customers to whom it will offer in-person brokerage services, that VOW broker will be permitted to operate a referral VOW and refer to other brokers the educated customers he or she does not serve directly. Finally, the Modified VOW Policy prohibits MLSs from using an inferior data delivery method to provide MLS listings to VOW brokers 20 and from unreasonably restricting the advertising and co-branding relationships VOW brokers establish with third parties. 21 VOW brokers, under the Modified VOW Policy, will be free from MLS interference in the appearance and features of their VOWs. 22 20 See Modified VOW Policy, ¶ III.2 (“For purposes of this Policy, ‘downloading’ means electronic transmission of data from MLS servers to a Participant's or AVP's server on a persistent basis” (emphasis added)). 21 *See id.,* ¶ III.7. 22 *See Id.,* ¶¶ III.8 & III.9. NAR is required by the Final Judgment to direct its Member Boards to adopt rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy within ninety days of this Court's entry of the Final Judgment. 23 To ensure that its Member Boards adopt, maintain, and enforce rules implementing the Modified VOW Policy, NAR is required to deny errors and omissions insurance coverage to any Member Board that refuses to do so and forward to the United States any complaints it receives concerning the failure of any Member Board (or any MLS owned or operated by any Member Board) to abide by or enforce those rules. 24 The proposed Final Judgment also broadly prohibits NAR from adopting any other rules that impede the operation of VOWs or that discriminate against VOW brokers in the operation of their VOWs. 25 23 Proposed Final Judgment, ¶ V.D. 24 *Id.,* ¶¶ V.E & V.H. 25 *Id.,* ¶¶ IV.A & IV.B. Finally, the proposed Final Judgment, applicable for ten years after its entry by this Court, 26 establishes an antitrust compliance program under which NAR is required to review its Member Board's rules for compliance with the proposed Final Judgment, to provide materials to its Member Boards that explain the proposed Final Judgment and the Modified VOW Policy, and to hold an annual program for its Member Boards and their counsel discussing the proposed Final Judgment and the antitrust laws. 27 The proposed Final Judgment expressly places no limitation on the United States' ability to investigate or bring an antitrust enforcement action in the future to prevent harm to competition caused by any rule adopted or enforced by NAR or any of its Member Boards. 28 26 *Id.,* ¶ X. 27 *Id.,* ¶ V.G. 28 *Id.,* ¶ IX. IV. Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against NAR. V. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgment The United States and NAR have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. The APPA provides a period of at least sixty
(60)days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty
(60)days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the **Federal Register,** or the last date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the United States, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court and published in the **Federal Register.** Written comments should be submitted to: John R. Read, Chief, Litigation Ill Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530. The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment. 29 29 Proposed Final Judgment, ¶ VIII. VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Amended Final Judgment At several points during the litigation, the United States received from defendant NAR proposals or suggestions that would have provided less relief than is contained in the proposed Final Judgment. These proposals and suggestions were rejected. The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, proceeding with the full trial on the merits against NAR that was scheduled to commence on July 7, 2008. The United States is satisfied that the relief contained in the proposed Final Judgment will quickly establish, preserve, and ensure that consumers can benefit from the enhanced brokerage service competition brought by VOW brokers as effectively as any remedy the United States likely would have obtained after a successful trial. VII. Standard of Review Under the APPA for Proposed Final Judgment The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A)The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B)The impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C.16(e)(l)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the United States is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.” *United States* v. *Microsoft Corp.,* 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally *United States* v. *SBC Commc'ns, Inc.,* 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing public interest standard under the Tunney Act). 30 30 The 2004 amendments substituted “shall” for “may” in directing relevant factors for a court to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(l) (2006); see also SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the United States' complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. *See* Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.” *United States* v. *BNS, Inc.,* 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing *United States* v. *Bechtel Corp.,* 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); *see* also Microsoft, 56F.3d at 1460-62; *United States* v. *Alcoa, Inc.,* 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001). Courts have held that: “[t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is “ *within the reaches of the public interest.* ” More elaborate requirements might undermine the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree.” *Bechtel,* 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 31 In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, a district court “must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; *see* also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be “deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies”); *United States* v. *Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,* 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case). 31 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's “ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree”); *United States* v. *Gillette Co.,* 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to “look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's reducing glass”). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether “the remedies obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ”). Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’ ” *United States* v. *Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,* 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting *United States* v. *Gillette Co.,* 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd sub nom. *Maryland* v. *United States,* 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also *United States* v. *Alcan Aluminum Ltd.,* 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial (prosecutorial by bringing a case in the first place), it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. *Id.* at 1459-60. As the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently confirmed in SBC Communications, courts “cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15. In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). This language effectuates what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598
(1973)(statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp.2d at 11. 32 32 *See United States* v. *Enova Corp.,* 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the “Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone”); *United States* v. *Mid-Am Dairymen, Inc.,* 1977-1 Trade Cas.
(CCH)¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should * * * carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6
(1973)(“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”). VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Respectfully submitted, David C. Kully, Craig W. Conrath, David C. Kully. *U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 5th Street, NW; Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Tel:
(202)307-5779, Fax:
(202)307-9952.* Dated: June 12, 2008 Certificate of Service I, David C. Kully, hereby certify that on this 12th day of June 2008, I caused a copy of the foregoing Competitive Impact Statement to be served by ECF on counsel for the defendant identified below. Jack R. Bierig, Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
(312)853-7000, *jbierig@sidley.com* . David C. Kully. [FR Doc. E8-13902 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request June 20, 2008. The Department of Labor
(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests
(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 each 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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 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:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052). *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0179. *Affected Public:* Private Sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 92,354. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 67,362. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $16,753,110. *Description:* The information collection requirements contained in the Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052) serve to ensure that employees are not being harmed by exposure to Methylene Chloride. For additional information, see related notice published at 73 FR 22176 on April 24, 2008. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a previously approved collection. *Title of Collection:* Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard. *OMB Control Number:* 1218-0131. *Affected Public:* Private Sector—Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 45,616. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 281,419. *Estimated Total Annual Costs Burden:* $35,978,301. *Description:* The information collection requirements contained in the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemical in Laboratories Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450) control employees overexposure to hazardous laboratory chemicals, thereby preventing serious illnesses and death among employees exposed to such chemicals. For additional information see related notice published at 73 FR 20069 on April 14, 2008. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14352 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,864] Ametek, Inc., Measurement and Calibration Technology Division, Sellersville, PA; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 30, 2008, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on April 18, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24318). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that criteria I.A and II.A have not been met. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding employment and layoffs at the subject firm. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of June, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14301 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,019] Honeywell Aerospace, Aerospace—Defense & Space Division, Teterboro, NJ; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 27, 2008, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 153 requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on April 16, 2008. The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24318). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of displays, processors, flight controls, software, and test equipment for aircrafts did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that workers of the subject firm were separated as a direct result of Honeywell Aerospace opening a facility in Mexico. The petitioner also states that the subject firm is in the process of importing the articles produced in Mexico to the United States. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine whether there was a shift in production from the subject facility to Mexico and whether the subject firm has imported like or directly competitive products in the relevant time period. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of June, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14302 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,041] Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3, Including On-Site Leased Workers from Aerotek Automotive, PDSI Technical Services, Acro Service Corp., G-Tech Professional Staffing, TAC Automotive, Bartech, Manpower Professional Services, Manpower Of Vandalia, Setech, Mays Chemical And Kelly Engineering Services, Dayton, Ohio; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 30, 2006, applicable to workers of Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3, Dayton, Ohio. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2006 (71 FR 74564). At the request of a petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of automotive brake parts. New information shows that leased workers Aerotek Automotive, PDSI Technical Services, Acro Service Corp., G-Tech Professional Staffing, TAC Automotive, Bartech, Manpower Professional Services, Manpower of Vandalia, Setech, Mays Chemical and Kelly Engineering Services were employed on-site at the Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3, Dayton, Ohio, location of Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers from the above mentioned firms working on-site at the Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3, Dayton, Ohio, location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3 who were adversely affected by increased imports of automotive brake parts. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,041 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Needmore Road/Dayton Plant 3, including on-site leased workers from Aerotek Automotive, PDSI Technical Services, Acro Service Corp., G-Tech Processional Staffing, TAC Automotive, Bartech, Manpower Professional Services, Manpower of Vandalia, Setech, Mays Chemicals and Kelly Engineering Services, Dayton, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 24, 2005, through November 30, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14299 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,655] Westell, Inc., Including on-site Temporary Workers from Kay and Associates, Aurora, IL; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 25, 2007, applicable to workers of Westell, Inc., Aurora, Illinois. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39642). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of network access products, and are not separately identifiable. New information shows that temporary workers of Kay and Associates were employed on-site at the Aurora, Illinois, location of Westell, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered temporary workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include temporary workers of Kay and Associates working on-site at the Aurora, Illinois, location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Westell, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, who were adversely affected by increased imports of network access products. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,655 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Westell, Inc., including on-site temporary workers from Kay and Associates, Aurora, Illinois, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 7, 2006, through June 25, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14300 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221
(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221
(a)of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than July 7, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than July 7, 2008. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix—TAA Petitions Instituted Between 6/9/08 and 6/13/08 TA-W Subject firm (Petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 63499 Kincaid Furniture Company, Inc.
(Comp)Hudson, NC 06/09/08 06/05/08 63500 Lumberton Dyeing and Finishing
(Rep)Lumberton, NC 06/09/08 06/06/08 63501 Lab Security Systems Corp (State) Bristol, CT 06/09/08 06/06/08 63502 Onsite International, Inc.
(Wkrs)El Paso, TX 06/09/08 05/20/08 63503 3 Day Blinds
(Wkrs)Anaheim, CA 06/09/08 06/06/08 63504 Kongsberg Automotive, Inc.
(Comp)Willis, TX 06/09/08 06/05/08 63505 Permacel Automotive
(UAW)Kansas City, MO 06/09/08 06/02/08 63506 SAPA Fabricated Products (State) Magnolia, AR 06/09/08 06/06/08 63507 Sirenza Microdevices, Inc./RF Microdevices (State) Broomfield, CO 06/09/08 05/20/08 63508 Bedford Logistics, Inc.
(Wkrs)Bedford, IN 06/09/08 06/02/08 63509 Robin Manufacturing USA, Inc.
(Wkrs)Hudson, WI 06/09/08 06/04/08 63510 Plastech Engineered products
(Comp)Kenton, TN 06/09/08 06/06/08 63511 Liz Claiborne/Ellen Tracy (UNITE) North Bergen, NJ 06/10/08 06/09/08 63512 Dynamic Technology, Inc.
(Comp)Hartland, MI 06/10/08 06/09/08 63513 CIMA Plastics II Corporation
(Wkrs)Elberton, GA 06/11/08 06/02/08 63514 Plastech Engineered Products, Inc.
(Wkrs)Elwood, IN 06/11/08 06/05/08 63515 Aberdeen Fabrics, Inc.
(Comp)Red Springs, NC 06/11/08 06/05/08 63516 Morlite/Vista
(Wkrs)Pittsburgh, PA 06/11/08 06/09/08 63517 Tredegar Film Products (Union) Marlin, PA 06/11/08 06/05/08 63518 WRR, Inc. D/B/A State Plating
(Wkrs)Elwood, IN 06/11/08 06/03/08 63519 Parlex USA (State) Methuen, MA 06/11/08 06/06/08 63520 American Dynamics
(Wkrs)San Diego, CA 06/11/08 06/06/08 63521 Dal Tile, Inc.
(Wkrs)Dallas, TX 06/12/08 06/10/08 63522 Brockway Mould, Inc.
(USW)Brockport, PA 06/12/08 06/11/08 63523 Bee Chemical, DBA NB Coatings, Inc.
(Wkrs)Lansing, IL 06/12/08 05/27/08 63524 Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance
(Comp)Nashville, TN 06/12/08 05/31/08 63525 Overhead Door Corporation (Union) Lewistown, PA 06/12/08 06/10/08 63526 St. John Knits (State) Irvine, CA 06/12/08 06/11/08 63527 Union Tank Car Company (Union) East Chicago, IN 06/12/08 05/29/08 63528 Callaway Golf Ball Operations, Inc.
(Comp)Johnstown, NY 06/12/08 06/06/08 63529 Fisher and Company/Fisher Dynamics
(Comp)St. Clair Shores, MI 06/13/08 06/12/08 63530 McNaughton Apparel Group, Inc. (State) New York, NY 06/13/08 05/08/08 63531 William Pinchbeck, Inc. dba Pinchbeck Roses (State) Guilford, CT 06/13/08 06/12/08 63532 Woodward Controls, Inc.
(Rep)Niles, IL 06/13/08 05/19/08 63533 Thomasville Upholstery Plant #9
(Comp)Hickory, NC 06/13/08 06/12/08 63534 Novtex Div. of Trimtex Company, Inc.
(Comp)Adams, MA 06/13/08 06/12/08 63535 Jefferson Plant of Leviton Manufacturing Company
(Comp)Jefferson, NC 06/13/08 06/12/08 63536 Brazing Concepts South
(Comp)Fairfield, OH 06/13/08 06/12/08 63537 Littelfuse/Account Finance Department (State) Des Plaines, IL 06/13/08 06/12/08 63538 Plastech Engineered Products
(Wkrs)Gallatin, TN 06/13/08 06/05/08 63539 DMAX, Ltd (IUECWA) Dayton, OH 06/13/08 06/12/08 63540 Sento Corporation
(Wkrs)Raleigh, NC 06/13/08 06/09/08 [FR Doc. E8-14296 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-57,700] Joy Technologies, Inc., dba Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On October 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further investigation *Former Employees of Joy Technologies, Inc.* v. *U.S. Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 06-00088. Case History On August 2, 2005, the International Brotherhood of Boiler-makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 483, filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)on behalf of workers and former workers of Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon, Illinois producing underground mining equipment. The petition alleged that the Mt. Vernon facility would close September 23, 2005, due to a shift of production to Canada, China, Mexico and Russia. Administrative Record
(AR)2-3, 20. Workers of the Mt. Vernon facility were previously denied eligibility to apply for TAA under TA-W-42,234 on the basis that the workers did not produce an article. AR 8, Supplemental Administrative Record
(SAR)127. During the initial investigation, the petitioners submitted documents in support of the allegation that mining equipment production shifted to Mexico. AR 22-28. Also, during the initial investigation, Joy officials provided information that the principal functions performed at the Mt. Vernon Illinois facility were building and rebuilding shuttle cars; rebuilding electrical motors used in certain types of mining machinery; and rebuilding gearboxes for armored face conveyors (AFC), AR 12, 14-15, 44. In addition, the Department learned that the Mt. Vernon facility was scheduled to close on September 23, 2005. AR 9, 12, 125. Joy also provided information that the Mt. Vernon facility's closure was due to the relocation of operations to a new facility in Kentucky. AR 12, 15, 16, 29, 126. The new facility in Kentucky would “manufacture shuttle cars, rebuild motors and rebuild AFC gearcases.” AR 126. Joy Mining Machinery
(Joy)already had warehouse facilities in Kentucky. AR 126. Information received from Joy documents that the Mt. Vernon facility's sales during November 2003 through October 2004 increased from November 2002 through October 2003 levels and that sales during November 2004 through July 2005 decreased from November 2003 through July 2004 levels, and that Joy's domestic sales in fiscal year 2004 increased from fiscal year 2003 levels, and increased during the first three quarters of 2005 when compared to the first three quarters of 2004. AR 14, 29. The initial negative determination, issued on September 15, 2005, was based on the Department's findings that: • Workers at Joy Technologies, Inc., Mt. Vernon, Illinois produced underground mining machinery; • Sales and employment at the Mt. Vernon facility increased from 2003 to 2004; • Mt. Vernon facility sales remained stable in January through July 2005 when compared to January through July 2004; • Company-wide sales increased in January through July 2005 when compared to January through July 2004; • Joy did not shift production to a foreign country; and • Joy did not import articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility. AR 132-135. By letter dated November 3, 2005, the former employees requested administrative reconsideration, stating that the workers were engaged in fabrication of mining equipment components and that these components are being produced in a foreign country. The request further alleged that the worker separations were due to Joy's shift of production to a foreign country (Mexico). AR 145-148 The negative reconsideration determination, issued on January 19, 2006, was based on the Department's findings that: • There was no shift of production to Mexico; • the work at issue was temporary work re-assigned to several domestic Joy facilities, including the Mt. Vernon facility; • The workers' separations were due to a shift of operations to an affiliated domestic facility in Kentucky; and • The subject workers were not eligible to apply for TAA as workers of either a primary company or a secondarily-affected company. AR 180-183. By letter dated March 15, 2006, Plaintiffs sought judicial review by the USCIT. Plaintiffs' counsel's August 24, 2006 letter stated that the Department failed to identify the manufacturing functions of the Mt. Vernon facility and to adequately investigate, and subsequently determine, whether the petitioning workers are eligible to apply for worker adjustment assistance under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, due to either increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility or a shift of production to a foreign country, specifically Mexico. SAR 193-198. The Department's motion for voluntary remand to further investigate the Plaintiffs' allegations and to issue a re-determination of subject workers' eligibility to apply TAA and ATAA was granted by the USCIT on September 25, 2006. SAR 240. During the first remand investigation, the Department contacted Plaintiffs' counsel for information, SAR 200-234, 242-392, 409-411, reviewed submissions from Plaintiffs, SAR 200-201, 407-408, 416-419, 422-423, and reviewed information provided by Joy. SAR 200-201, 235, 412-415, 420-421. During the first remand investigation, the Department received 12 affidavits from Plaintiffs. A summary of relevant facts of each affidavit follows: Ten affiants stated that the subject facility always manufactured both finished products and components of mining machinery; Joy's main production facility is in Franklin, Pennsylvania but there were Joy facilities throughout the United States, including Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia; and a “substantial part” of the subject facility's work is performed as “an upstream supplier” for the Franklin, Pennsylvania facility. The same ten affiants stated that the subject facility imported mining machinery components from Mexico, “did the final machining on completed crawler track frames that originated in Mexico,” or some close variation thereof. Nine affiants referenced parts or components stamped “hecho en Mexico.” Gary Coles further stated that the subject facility had sold completed components “directly to customers.” Steve Lisenbey further stated that in January 2002, a subject facility manager stated that “Joy had formed a partnership with a Mexican supplier to outsource the fabrication of continuous miner components” and “components fabricated in Mexico did not meet the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) standards,” so “the completed components Joy outsourced to Mexico had to be brought to Mt. Vernon for the final machining”; and the Joy, Lebanon, Kentucky facility “does not have the same manufacturing functions and duties” as the subject facility because it does not fabricate components. SAR 280-283. John Moore further stated that the subject facility “took sales orders directly from customers”; and in “approximately October or November 2005, a sales manager for Joy “told me that Joy was outsourcing manufacture and assembly of mining equipment to Mexico.” SAR 292-296. Jerome Tobin further stated that on “October 17, 2006,” Merlin Orser, the President of the Union's local at Franklin, Pennsylvania, “confirmed for me that the Lebanon facility does only assembly work * * * does not perform the manufacturing functions that the Mt. Vernon facility performed when it was open.” SAR 316-320. David Vaughn further stated that a former Joy supervisor “told me that at Coal Age he is outsourcing the manufacture of continuous miner frames to a company in Mexico * * * the same Mexican company for outsourcing that Joy used to fabricate the continuous miner components.” SAR 328-332. Steven Kirkpatrick further stated that in 2003, “DMUs came into the Mt. Vernon plant from Mexico.” SAR 366-370. Darrell Cockrum stated that, in August 2005, Mr. Peircey from Engles Trucking told him that he had picked up a shipment of crawler track frames at Extreme Machine, Youngstown, Ohio; that the shipment had originated in Mexico; that Extreme Machine “had a large number of crawler track frames that Joy had fabricated in Mexico”; Joy had shipped the frames from Mexico to Extreme Machine for final machining; and that the frames in the August 2005 shipments were from Mexico and sent to the subject facility for final machining. SAR 394-395. William Perkins stated that in 2004 and 2005, he photographed and inspected conveyor supports, discharge tails, and crawler track frames that had originated in Mexico and were stamped “hecho en Mexico.” SAR 410-411. In the course of the first remand, the Department determined that the subject workers produced mining machinery and finished mining machinery components, and rebuilt mining machinery components. Because the workers who produced finished mining machinery and mining machinery components were not separately identifiable by product line, AR 12, the Department determined that the subject worker group was engaged in the production of mining machinery and mining machinery components. Since rebuilding machinery is a repair activity, it was considered a service and was not an issue in the first remand investigation. On January 8, 2007, the Department issued a negative determination on remand. The Department based its determination on the following findings: • There was no shift of production of either finished mining machinery or components from the Mt. Vernon facility to a foreign country; • Production shifted from the Mt. Vernon facility to Joy's Lebanon, Kentucky facility; • Neither the Mt. Vernon facility nor Joy (overall) increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the Mt. Vernon facility; and • Increased imports, if any, could not have contributed importantly to workers' separations because sales increased during the relevant period. SAR 429-448. The USCIT, in its October 31, 2007 decision, concluded that the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. Further, the Court found that the Department misstated the Trade Adjustment Assistance requirements, where the Department determined that there was not a shift of production to Equimin, a sometime Mexican supplier, based on the Department's finding that Equimin was not owned by Joy. Accordingly, the Court ordered a second remand investigation, in order for the Department to determine whether the subject workers were eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. The Department carefully reviewed USCIT decision for guidance in designing the remand investigation, so that the Department could: • Review the work performed by the subject workers, regardless of whether the work was “core” or “non-core” functions of the Mt. Vernon facility; • Determine whether increases (absolute or relative) in imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility contributed importantly to worker separations (total or partial), or threat thereof, and to declines in Mt. Vernon facility sales and/or production; • Determine whether there has been a shift in production by Joy of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility to a qualified country (a foreign country, such as Mexico, that is either a party to a free trade agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act); • Determine whether there has been a shift of production by Joy of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility to a foreign country followed by an actual or likely increase in imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by the Mt. Vernon facility; and • Issue a re-determination whether the subject workers are eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. Trade Adjustment Assistance Criteria To apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, must be met. The requirements can be satisfied in either of two ways: I. Section 222(a)(2)(A)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section 222(a)(2)(B)— A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; or 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Applicable Regulations Under the definition of “increased imports” presented in 29 CFR 90.2, imports must have increased, absolutely or relative to domestic production, compared to a representative base period. The regulation establishes what the Department refers to as the “relevant period,” i.e., the twelve-month period prior to the date of the petition, and the “representative base period,” the one-year period preceding the relevant period. Further, pursuant to 29 CFR 90.2, like articles are “those which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e., materials from which the articles are made, appearance, quality, texture, etc.)” and directly competitive articles are “those which, although not substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics, are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and essentially interchangeable therefore).” Second Remand Investigation Glossary To more easily understand the terms used in this determination, the Department will use the following definitions: • “ *Continuous miner* ” and “ *Miner* ” are terms that are used interchangeably and refer to a type of heavy underground mining equipment used to remove earth during the mining process; • “ *Crawler Track Frames* ” and “ *CAT Frames* ” are bare steel Structures that serve as the framework for the construction of a continuous miner; • “ *Haulage* ” refers to a type of heavy equipment that is used to transport coal and earth during the mining process, and includes shuttle cars; • “ *Joy* ” refers to Joy Technologies, Inc., doing business as
(DBA)Joy Mining Machinery (corporate entity); • “ *Rebuild* ” refers to repair; • “ *Relevant Period* ” refers to the 12-month period prior to the petition date, which is August 2004 through July 2005; • “ *Subject Workers* ” refers to workers and former workers at Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon, Illinois. Mt. Vernon Facility Operations THIS SECTION CONTAINS BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND PORTION BETWEEN BRACKETS MUST BE REDACTED FROM PUBLIC VERSION [ ] Joy's Relationship With EQUIMIN THIS SECTION CONTAINS BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND PORTION BETWEEN BRACKETS MUST BE REDACTED FROM PUBLIC VERSION [ ] Scope of Second Remand Investigation The Department recognizes the remedial nature of the TAA program, and therefore reviews facts in the light most favorable to the separated workers seeking benefits. However, the Department has a statutory obligation to determine whether the petitioning workers have met the group eligibility criteria of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In an effort to effectuate the remedial purposes of the Trade Act, the Department generally incorporated, verbatim, Plaintiff's proposed questions for Joy into the second remand investigation (SAR 496, 507-508) and carefully considered Plaintiffs' relevant input. In order to determine whether a petitioning worker group has met the statutory criteria, the Department first determines what article(s) the subject workers produced during the relevant period. Second, the Department determines whether, during the relevant period, there were significant worker separations. After making those determinations, the Department determines whether there were declines (absolute or relative) in Mt. Vernon facility sales and/or production. If so, the Department determines whether increased imports, as described in 29 CFR 90.2, of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility contributed importantly to the worker separations and sales and/or production declines. The Department must also determine whether, in addition to significant worker separations, there has been a shift of production from the Mt. Vernon facility of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility to a qualifying country or if there have been, or are likely to be, increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility following Joy's shift of production to a non-qualifying country. While the Plaintiffs did not allege secondary-impact (the situation where, during the relevant period, the Mt. Vernon facility either supplied component parts to or assembled/finished for a company with a worker group certified eligible to apply for TAA), it is the Department's practice to consider secondary-impact should a petitioning worker group not meet the statutory criteria. Where the separated workers meet the group eligibility requirement (significant separations or threat of separation) of the Trade Act, as amended, the Department conducts an investigation to determine if the subject workers are eligible to apply for ATAA. To determine the subject workers' eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA, the Department reviewed previously-submitted information, as well as information submitted during the second remand investigation, regardless of whether the work performed by the subject workers could be characterized as “core” functions of the Mt. Vernon facility. Further, the Department has been consistently mindful during the second remand investigation of the need to base its determination on competent, credible evidence. The plaintiffs have disputed Joy's credibility, observing that a particular Joy official had provided “less than credible information,” in a separate proceeding. SAR 862. In response, the Department has taken particular care to seek information from Joy officials [REDACTED IN PUBLIC VERSION] who were qualified to respond based on their familiarity with the Mt. Vernon facility's operations, during the Court-ordered remand investigation. SAR 895, 975. Further, all information received from Joy was provided to Plaintiffs' counsel for review and comment, so that there was full opportunity for exposure of any inaccuracy. Indeed, plaintiffs did respond to Joy's submissions, characterizing them as non-responsive, incomprehensible and insufficient basis for negative determination. SAR 870-872, 910-914, 939-940, 982-983, 985-986. Plaintiffs focus particular attention on Joy's apparent effort to minimize the significance of the crawler track frame work performed at the Mt. Vernon facility and in Mexico. SAR 912, 985. In addition, two of the plaintiffs submitted affidavits that were intended to rebut Joy's information. SAR 915-921, 941-942, 987-988. The plaintiffs raised no issues as to the truthfulness of Joy's informants. A careful review of previously submitted information revealed that Joy was aware that TAA and ATAA would be paid at no cost to them (AR 19) and, therefore, had no incentive to prevent the subject workers from receiving TAA benefits, AR 29-30. In addition, a Joy official stated that Joy wanted former workers “to receive all of the benefits to which they are legally entitled.” AR 160. After having given every reasonable consideration to plaintiffs' critiques of Joy's submissions, the Department has determined that the ostensible gaps or flaws in the record developed for the second remand investigation reflect areas of inquiry where either there was no responsive information (SAR 975-976) or there was no responsive information that was relevant to the Department's deliberations. SAR 973. The company officials and Joy counsel have demonstrated that they are knowledgeable of the matters on which they provided information, which included hundreds of pages of company records to substantiate their responses. Further, while both the plaintiffs and the former firm have directed considerable effort to expounding their views as to whether the fabrication of crawler track frames was a “core” activity at the Mt. Vernon facility, the Department has determined that the distinction between “core” and “non-core” is irrelevant to the Department's decision on remand. Indeed, the application of the statutory criteria for certification requires no such finding. Based on careful consideration of all relevant factors, the Department has found that the information provided by Joy is competent and credible. Given the remedial purposes of the Trade Act, the Department carefully scrutinized all information received from the plaintiffs, giving them the benefit of every doubt. However, based on plaintiffs' failure to substantiate their allegations or to rebut information provided by Joy, the Department has determined that the information submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to overcome the conclusions drawn from the statements and voluminous documentary evidence by Joy. Further, to the extent that the plaintiffs' information is credible, the facts they have adduced would not have satisfied the statutory criteria for certification. In particular, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' information about [REDACTED IN PUBLIC VERSION] does not support conclusion that there was a shift of production from the Mt. Vernon facility to a foreign source. In order to ensure that the second remand determination is based on substantial evidence, the Department has made every reasonable effort to obtain pertinent information. To that end, the Department requested Plaintiffs' counsel to provide the Department with questions that could be sent to Joy. SAR 449-455, 498-500. In response to the Department's requests, Plaintiffs' counsel submitted several questions, including questions regarding imports of mining equipment and components; the outsourcing of mining components; work orders for mining equipment and components; and employee time records for activities related to the production of mining equipment and components. SAR 496, 499, 507. During the second remand investigation, the Department requested that Joy identify the types of mining equipment and components produced at the Mt. Vernon facility and provide the quantity of each type of mining equipment and component produced at the Mt. Vernon facility. SAR 506-507. In efforts to seek clarification of the initial responses, the Department conducted a conference call with Joy officials to discuss previously-submitted information, SAR 904-908, and requested that Joy submit marketing material that illustrated the mining equipment. SAR 948-966. Plaintiffs' only submissions during the second remand investigation consist of three affidavits from two former workers of the Mt. Vernon facility. While both former employees asserted that they rebuilt continuous mining equipment and mining component parts, neither former worker alleged increased imports of continuous mining equipment and/or mining component parts or a shift of production abroad. SAR 930, 941. John P. Moore, a former worker of the Mt. Vernon facility who submitted an affidavit during the first remand investigation, stated in his April 18, 2008 affidavit that: • In 2001, the Mt. Vernon facility became a “center of excellence for haulage” with haulage being shuttle cars, armored face conveyors, and battery cars; • Following the change, the Mt. Vernon facility manufactured shuttle cars as well as “miner components, both for its own use, and as overflow work from other Joy facilities”; • “Joy, Mt. Vernon manufactured many different continuous miner components, not just crawler track frames”; • “Joy, Mt. Vernon also manufactured and/or serviced other continuous miner components * * * Joy, Mt. Vernon manufactured these * * * for use in rebuilding and also to sell directly to customers”; • “In May 2004, Joy began producing sixty-nine
(69)conveyors and seventy-two
(72)conveyor supports as overflow work for the Franklin, Pennsylvania plant”; and • “The rebuilding of continuous miners often required manufacturing new continuous miner components to replace old components.” SAR 930-933. Steven Kirkpatrick, another former worker of the Mt. Vernon facility who also provided an affidavit during the first remand investigation, described in his April 24, 2008 affidavit the fabrication of crawler track frames. SAR 941-942. John P. Moore, in his May 22, 2008 affidavit, described several continuous miner components and repeated his earlier statement that “In May 2004, Joy began producing sixty-nine
(69)conveyors and seventy-two
(72)conveyor supports as overflow work for the Franklin, Pennsylvania plant.” SAR 987. During the second remand investigation, the Department received from Joy data regarding: • Production and service orders of mining equipment and components at the Mt. Vernon facility during June 2003 through July 2004, SAR 667-727; • Production orders of mining equipment and components at the Mt. Vernon facility during August 2003 through September 2004, SAR 773-785, 832-844, 882-891; • Production and service orders of mining equipment and components at the Mt. Vernon facility during August 2004 through September 2005, SAR 728-768; • Production orders of mining equipment and components at the Mt. Vernon facility during October 2004 through November 2005, SAR 781-798, SAR 821-831; • Employment figures at the Mt. Vernon facility during June 2003 through August 2005, including the types of workers and the staff level of each worker category, SAR 535-666; • Mining equipment repair data for 2003, 2004, and 2005, SAR 769; and • Data regarding labor costs and production costs for various Joy facilities, including Mt. Vernon, Illinois, and Lebanon, Kentucky. SAR 770. All information obtained from Joy during the second remand investigation was submitted to Plaintiffs' counsel (subject to the USCIT protective order) for review and comment prior to the filing of the second remand determination. Indeed, the Department requested an extension of the time to file the remand determination, in order to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with adequate time to review the materials and submit comments, as well as to allow time for the Department to consider the Plaintiffs' concerns about Joy's submissions. Issue #1: Articles Produced by the Mt. Vernon Facility During the Relevant Period The Department determined in the first remand determination that the subject workers were engaged in the production of mining machinery and mining machinery components. During the second remand investigation, the Department received information from Joy which clarified that the Mt. Vernon facility produced haulage equipment, SAR 849-856, 905, 908, and rebuilt mining component parts. SAR 728-768, 882-891, 905, 978-979. Joy also provided information which indicated that the subject workers produced a significant quantity of brakes and clutches for after-market sale to customers, SAR 907-908. Joy also provided information which indicated the Mt. Vernon facility produced some crawler track frames, on an “overflow” basis, during the representative base period and the relevant period. SAR 854-855. [REDACTED IN PUBLIC VERSION] The Department also received three affidavits (two, dated April 18, 2008 and May 22, 2008, from one plaintiff and one dated April 24, 2008 from another). The April 21 affidavit described work performed at the Mt. Vernon facility and estimated that work on crawler track frames constituted at least 30 percent of the Mt. Vernon facility's work in the last year it was open. SAR 917. The April 24 affidavit addressed the production of crawler track frames, estimating that the fabrication, alone, of the frames required 72 man hours. SAR 941. The May 22 affidavit described certain components of continuous miners and stated that the Mt. Vernon facility manufactured components for mining machinery between 2003 and the time the plant closed. SAR 987-988. Joy responded to the plaintiffs' affidavits, questioning the accuracy of the 30 percent estimate and the overall relevance of the affiants' statements. Based on careful review of the record, the Department has determined that the subject workers were engaged in the production of haulage equipment and mining equipment component parts, including crawler track frames, and that the workers were not separately identifiable by product line. Issue #2: Significant Worker Separations at the Mt. Vernon Facility During the Relevant Period The Mt. Vernon facility closed on September 23, 2005. AR 2, 12. As such, the Department determines that, during the relevant period, a significant number or proportion of workers at the Mt. Vernon facility were totally or partially separated, or threatened to become totally or partially separated. Issue #3: Sales and/or Production Declines at the Mt. Vernon Facility During the Relevant Period The Mt. Vernon facility experienced sales and production declines during the period extending from January 2005 through July 2005, as compared to the comparable period the previous year. AR 14. Accordingly, the Department determines that, during the relevant period, sales and production declined absolutely. Issue #4: Increased Imports Did Not Contribute Importantly to Mt. Vernon Facility Declines or Worker Separations Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.2, imports must have increased, absolutely or relative to domestic production, during the relevant period when compared to a representative base period. The regulation establishes the representative base period as the one-year period preceding the relevant period. Plaintiffs have alleged that “continuous miner components like or directly competitive with those manufactured at Joy Mt. Vernon, were being imported to the plant from Mexico,” SAR 456, and provided printed material from the Web site of Equimin that states “Equimin is actually exporting steel structures for underground shielded and belt conveyor to the Joy Mining Machinery in U.S.A.” SAR 458-469. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Joy does not import finished mining machinery. AR 13-14, 170. Accordingly, the scope of the second remand investigation is limited to mining equipment component parts. According to Joy, [REDACTED IN PUBLIC VERSION] SAR 970. Because the imports occurred during the relevant period (August 2004 through July 2005), the Department finds that there were imports of mining equipment component parts like or directly competitive with those produced by the Mt. Vernon facility. 1 However, the Department has determined, given that production of crawler track frames at the Mt. Vernon facility increased during the relevant period (SAR 854) and the imports ceased before the Mt. Vernon facility closed (SAR 970), that imports of crawler track frames did not contribute importantly to Mt. Vernon facility sales and/or volume declines and worker separations. If anything, the import of frames created work for the Mt. Vernon facility, which might otherwise have closed even sooner. SAR 907. 1 The record is not clear about the volume of imports, so it cannot be determined whether imports increased during the relevant period. For the purposes of this finding, the Department will assume that imports increased. If the Department were to consider imports from Mexico as a possible basis for certification, the Department would need to determine if such imports were “like or directly competitive with” articles produced at the Mt. Vernon facility. Joy has stated that it imported crawler track frames, while averring that it did not import any article like or directly competitive with the component parts produced at the Mt. Vernon facility. This can best be understood by discussing the application of the terms “like” and “directly competitive” within the context of the Trade Act. Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.2, like articles are “those which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e., materials from which the articles are made, appearance, quality, texture, etc.)” and directly competitive articles are “those which, although not substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics, are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and essentially interchangeable therefore).” Under this definition, prescription glasses are like non-prescription glasses and are directly competitive with contact lenses, but are not directly competitive with non-prescription sunglasses and are not like contact lenses. As illustrated, two articles may be like each other without being directly competitive with each other, and two articles may be directly competitive with each other without being like each other. According to information provided by both Joy and the plaintiffs the crawler track frame work performed in Mexico produced “just grids—metal frames with nothing on them.” SAR 907. The finishing process required substantial additional work. SAR 854, 916. Therefore, frames imported from Mexico were components of a finished product, rather than the product itself. Accordingly, the crawler track frames fabricated in Mexico and imported to the United States for finishing were not like or directly competitive with the frames that were fully manufactured at the Mt. Vernon facility and elsewhere in the United States. Issue #5: Joy Did Not Shift Production to a Foreign Country The plaintiffs have asserted that production of crawler track frames shifted from the Mt. Vernon facility to Mexico. SAR 293-296. Based on the information the Department obtained during previous investigations and confirmed during the second remand investigation, the Department has determined that there was no shift of production to a foreign country. Rather, production shifted from the Mt. Vernon facility to other domestic facilities. AR 9, 20, 29-30, 130-131, 159-160, 169-170, SAR 248, 251, 415, 425. Joy has presented credible and competent evidence that the work previously performed at the Mt. Vernon facility has been shifted to other Joy facilities or to vendors in the United States, because of cost considerations. SAR 971, 975. In particular, Joy noted that the number of employees at the Kentucky plant to which some of the work previously performed by the Mt. Vernon facility had been shifted is roughly equivalent to the number of employees at the Mt. Vernon facility. SAR 973. The plaintiffs have not produced evidence that calls into question Joy's statement that foreign production sources have done no work for Joy since 2005. Therefore, the Department has determined that the subject workers are not eligible to apply for TAA based on a shift of production to a foreign country. The mere fact that the Mt. Vernon facility did work on some products produced in Mexico is not, in itself, evidence that production shifted to Mexico when the facility closed. Joy's explanation of where the Mt. Vernon facility's work went and the reasons for its closure are consistent and well supported in the record. Issue #6: The Mt. Vernon Facility Did Not Supply Component Parts to a Company With a Worker Group Certified Eligible To Apply for TAA Plaintiffs have asserted that the subject workers manufactured components for Joy's Franklin, Pennsylvania facility, SAR 194, 204-205, and may have produced components for Joy's Duffield, Virginia plant, Bluefield, West Virginia plant, and the Price, Utah plant. SAR 205. In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance based on secondary impact, the following group eligibility requirements under section 222(b) must be met:
(1)A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. The Department has reviewed the record and has determined that section 222(b)(2) has not been met, because
(1)the Mt. Vernon facility was a supplier for other Joy facilities, not for another firm, and
(2)there is no certified worker group with which the plaintiffs could be associated. Therefore, the Department determines that the subject workers are not eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers. Issue #7: The Worker Group Cannot Be Certified as Eligible To Apply for ATAA In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified as eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible to apply for ATAA. Conclusion After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I affirm the notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. Vernon, Illinois. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14298 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,451] Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, LLC, Columbia Falls, MT; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 30, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, LLC, Columbia Falls, Montana. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14304 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,542] Home Depot, Store Number 0379, Opelousas, LA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 16, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers of Home Depot, Store Number 0379, Opelousas, Louisiana. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of June 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14295 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,360] Motorola, Inc., Fort Worth, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 9, 2008 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Motorola, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. The workers are covered under an existing certification (TA-W-62,897) issued for all workers of Motorola, Inc., Integrated Supply Chain Division, Fort Worth, Texas, which expires on April 2, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of June, 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14303 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,519] Parlex USA, Methuen, MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 11, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers of Parlex USA, Methuen, Massachusetts. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-62,771) which expires on April 28, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-14305 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO); Notice of Open Meeting The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) was established pursuant to Title II of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-233) and Section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)(Pub. L. 92-462, Title 5 U.S.C. app.II). The ACVETEO's authority is codified in Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 4110. The ACVETEO is responsible for assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the Department of Labor meet these needs; and assisting in carrying out outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans. The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach will visit and participate in transition programs at area military installations on Thursday, July 24. The business meeting is on Friday, July 25, from 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel, 11915 El Camino Real, San Diego/Del Mar, California. The committee will discuss programs assisting veterans seeking employment and raising employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans with special emphasis on employer outreach and wounded and injured veterans. Individuals needing special accommodations should notify Bill Offutt at
(202)693-4717 by July 16, 2008. Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of June, 2008. John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary,Veterans Employment and Training Service. [FR Doc. E8-14307 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-79-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice that the agency proposes to request extension of a currently approved information collection used when veterans or other authorized individuals request information from or copies of documents in military service records. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 25, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (NHP), Room 4400, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001; or faxed to 301-713-7409; or electronically mailed to *tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694, or fax number 301-713-7409. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points:
(a)Whether the proposed collection information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA;
(b)the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections;
(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 the use of information technology; and
(e)whether small businesses are affected by this collection. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Request Pertaining to Military Records. *OMB number:* 3095-0029. *Agency form number:* SF 180. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Veterans, their authorized representatives, state and local governments, and businesses. *Estimated number of respondents:* 1,028,769. *Estimated time per response:* 5 minutes. *Frequency of response:* On occasion (when respondent wishes to request information from a military personnel record). *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 85,731 hours. *Abstract:* The authority for this information collection is contained in 36 CFR 1228.168(b). In accordance with rules issued by the Department of Defense
(DOD)and Department of Homeland Security (DHS, U.S. Coast Guard), the National Personnel Records Center
(NPRC)of the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)administers military service records of veterans after discharge, retirement, and death. When veterans and other authorized individuals request information from or copies of documents in military service records, they must provide in forms or in letters certain information about the veteran and the nature of the request. Federal agencies, military departments, veterans, veterans' organizations, and the general public use Standard Forms
(SF)180, Request Pertaining to Military Records, in order to obtain information from military service records stored at NPRC. Veterans and next-of-kin of deceased veterans can also use eVetRecs ( *http://www.archives.gov/research_room/vetrecs/* ) to order copies. Dated: June 20, 2008. Martha Morphy, Assistant Archivist for Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-14496 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board; Members AGENCY: National Capital Planning Commission. ACTION: Notice of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. SUMMARY: Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. (as amended by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards
(PRB)to review, evaluate and make a final recommendation on performance appraisals assigned to individual members of the agency's Senior Executive Service. The PRB established for the National Capital Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the agency head regarding SES performance awards, rank awards and bonuses. Section 4314(c)(4) requires that notice of appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the **Federal Register** . The following persons have been appointed to serve as members of the Performance Review Board for the National Capital Planning Commission: Deidre Flippen, Paula Hayes, Eric J. Gangloff and Charles Schneider from June 23, 2008, to June 23, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phyllis A. Vessels, Human Resources Specialist, National Capital Planning Commission, 401 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004,
(202)482-7217. Dated: June 20, 2008. Barry S. Socks, Chief Operating Officer. [FR Doc. E8-14398 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7520-01-P THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Notice of Extension of Expiring Information Collection: IMLS Library Workforce Study AGENCY: Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and Library Service
(IMLS)as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance 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 Institute of Museum and Library Services is soliciting comments concerning a study to promote improved workforce planning including strategies for recruitment and retention of workers in the LIS field. In particular, the study aims to collect current and projected employment in terms of numbers of positions (filled and vacant), functional specialization, educational requirements, skill/competency requirements, salaries and benefits, demographics, annual budget/expenditures, constituency or market size. Information to be collected from LIS professionals includes current employment, career path and career progression, professional association/union membership and demographics. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before 60 days from the date of this publication. *IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to* : • 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. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Lesley Langa, Research Specialist, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th floor, Washington, DC 20036, by telephone: 202-653-4760; fax: 202-653-4611; or by e-mail at *llanga@imls.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background The Institute of Museum and Library Services is authorized under U.S.C. 20 Chapter 72, and is the primary source of federal support for the nation's 122,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute's mission is to create strong libraries and museums that connect people to information and ideas. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. II. Current Actions *Agency:* Institute of Museum and Library Services. *Title:* National Study on the Future of Librarians in the Workforce. *OMB Number:* 3137-0063, expiration date: 06/30/2008. *Agency Number:* 3137. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* Libraries, librarians, other information professionals. *Number of Respondents:* To be determined. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* To be determined. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* To be determined. *Total Costs:* To be determined. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lesley Langa, Research Specialist, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th floor, Washington, DC 20036, by telephone: 202-653-4760; fax: 202-653-4611; or by e-mail at *llanga@imls.gov.* Dated:June 19, 2008. Lesley Langa, Research Specialist, Institute of Museum and Library Services. [FR Doc. E8-14344 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on March 19, 2008. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters.” 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0013. 4. *The form number if applicable:* NRC Form 241. 5. *How often the collection is required:* NRC Form 241 must be submitted each time an Agreement State licensee wants to engage in or revise its activities involving the use of radioactive byproduct material in a non-Agreement State, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters. The NRC may waive the requirements for filing additional copies of NRC Form 241 during the remainder of the calendar year following receipt of the initial form. 6. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Any licensee who holds a specific license from an Agreement State and wants to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters under the general license in 10 CFR 150.20. 7. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 2,188 responses. 8. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 140 respondents. 9. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 582 hours. 10. *Abstract:* Any Agreement State licensee who engages in the use of radioactive material in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters, under the general license in Section 150.20, is required to file, with the NRC regional administrator for the region in which the Agreement State that issues the license is located, a copy of NRC Form 241 (“Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters”), a copy of its Agreement State specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in Section 170.31 at least 3 days before engaging in such activity. This mandatory notification permits NRC to schedule inspections of the activities to determine whether the activities are being conducted in accordance with requirements for protection of the public health and safety. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by July 25, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0013), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney,
(301)415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-14345 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on April 2, 2008. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 61—Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0135. 4. *How often the collection is required:* Applications for licenses are submitted as needed. Other reports are submitted annually and as other events require. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Applicants for and holders of an NRC license (to include Agreement States) for land disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and all generators, collectors, and processors of low-level waste intended for disposal at a low-level waste facility. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 12. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 4. 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 5,412 hours (56 hours for reporting [approximately 4.6 hours per response] and 5,356 hours for recordkeeping [approximately 1,339 hours per recordkeeper]). 9. *Abstract:* 10 CFR Part 61 establishes the procedures, criteria, and license terms and conditions for the land disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are mandatory or, in the case of application submittals, are required to obtain a benefit. The information collected in the applications, reports, and records is evaluated by the NRC to ensure that the licensee's or applicant's physical plant, equipment, organization, training, experience, procedures, and plans provide an adequate level of protection of public health and safety, common defense and security, and the environment. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by July 25, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0135), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney,
(301)415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-14347 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos.: 50-335, 50-389; License Nos.: DPR-67, NPF-16; EA-07-321] In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) I Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or Licensee) is the holder of Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on March 1, 1976, and April 6, 1983, respectively. The license authorizes the operation of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, (St. Lucie or facility) in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Jensen Beach, Florida. This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution
(ADR)mediation session conducted on May 16, 2008. II On September 1, 2006, the NRC Office of Investigations
(OI)began an investigation (OI Case No. 2-2006-034) at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, the NRC staff concluded that a supervisor at St. Lucie willfully failed to take action to identify two contract workers as untrustworthy, subsequent to their actions to falsify a work order related to valve maintenance activities they performed. The results of the investigation were sent to FPL in a letter dated April 2, 2008. The NRC's letter of April 2, 2008, documented the forgoing incident which occurred on or about March 10, 2005. Two contractors documented a work order to indicate that they had used the torque wrench required by the work order when, in fact, they had used a different torque wrench, in an apparent effort to conceal their over-torquing of a valve. The April 2nd letter also documented the subsequent investigation of this incident by FPL and the corrective actions taken by FPL's St. Lucie management. Although FPL's immediate actions to ensure all maintenance and operational issues associated with the valve in question were prompt and comprehensive, the NRC's letter of April 2, 2008, documented two apparent violations associated with FPL's initial review and investigation into the matter. III On May 16, 2008, the NRC and FPL met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decisionmaking authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement or resolving any differences regarding their dispute. This confirmatory order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement consist of the following: 1. The NRC and FPL agreed that a violation occurred involving FPL's failure to adhere to FPL Nuclear Division Policy, NP-415, Revision 3, and ADM-15.02. These procedures require, in part, that in all instances where the trustworthiness and reliability of a person who is currently granted unescorted access
(UA)is called into question by credible objective evidence, the responsible supervisor or manager of that individual shall promptly contact the appropriate site security manager at the nuclear plant site. In this case, the falsification of the work order called into question the trustworthiness and reliability of the two contract workers. However, FPL did not ensure that the site security manager was contacted or otherwise initiate action such that the trustworthiness and reliability of the two contract workers could be assessed at that time. The actions of the two contract workers should have been considered in evaluating the two contract workers' suitability for continued unescorted access and possible entry into the Personnel Access Data System (PADS). As a result, FPL did not meet the Access Authorization program objective in 10 CFR 73.56(b)(1), which is to provide high assurance that individuals granted UA are trustworthy and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public including a potential to commit radiological sabotage. Subsequently, the two contract workers' trustworthiness was evaluated and they were entered into PADS. Prior to being entered into PADS, however, the contract workers were granted access to a number of nuclear sites, including St. Lucie. 2. The NRC and FPL agreed that CR 2005-7449 did not fully document the circumstances of the matter to permit FPL to conduct a thorough review such that corrective actions and a trustworthiness and reliability assessment would be performed. 3. The NRC and FPL agreed that the violation described above did not result in any adverse consequences. However, the failure to conduct a trustworthiness and reliability assessment is of concern to the NRC because the potential consequences, under different circumstances, could be significant. 4. FPL reiterated its commitment to the conduct of trustworthiness and reliability assessments as required. FPL agreed that the violation discussed above occurred as stated, and in response, agreed to implement or has completed the following corrective actions and enhancements: a. FPL will issue a fleet-wide training brief to managers and supervisors reinforcing the requirements of NP-415, the corporate policy governing Denial of Unescorted Access to FPL's Nuclear Facilities, and the site implementing procedures on access control. b. FPL will revise the site administrative procedures on access control as necessary to ensure that they require that contractor representatives and supervisors immediately notify FPL management of any incident or behavior that may call into question the trustworthiness or reliability of an individual. c. Site-specific Control and Acceptance of Contracted Services procedures will be revised as necessary to ensure that the NP-415 requirements are reviewed by the Site Technical Representative
(STRs)as part of the termination request process. FPL will also conduct a review of existing procedures related to contractor oversight and administration to ensure that the processes therein properly reflect the access control responsibilities of FPL. d. All STRs will receive a training bulletin that reinforces management expectations regarding FPL ownership of access control as part of the procedure revision. The initial and continuing training lesson plan will be revised to ensure that STRs, supervisors and managers understand management expectations regarding FPL ownership of access control. e. FPL will review fleet-wide the site administrative procedures for access control to ensure they require an express declaration of favorable or unfavorable termination, and to ensure that contractors are not allowed to manage their own access terminations without FPL management or STR approval. f. Plant management will reinforce management expectations via a fleet-wide training brief to all managers and supervisors, including the Management Review Committee
(MRC)and the Initial Screening Team (IST), reinforcing the requirements of NP-415 and the site access control procedures. A Lessons-Learned Bulletin will be deployed for all Corrective Action Program Coordinators (CAPCOs) to ensure that identified CRs contain sufficient detail for the MRCs to make informed decisions regarding level, investigation type, and immediate action recommendations. g. A representative from the Security Department will be added as a primary member of the MRC at each site. h. Management will conduct a briefing to MRC members with a focus on the lessons learned from the NNI event and need for conservative action for any issues that question the trustworthiness or reliability of any individual. FPL will institutionalize an MRC Job Familiarization Guide requiring new MRC and IST members to receive an orientation from management on the importance of recognizing potential security concerns while reviewing CRs. i. To address situations where the CR evaluator is not the person primarily responsible for the event/issue, plant procedures will be revised to require the system/process owner to review the evaluator's analysis and approve of the evaluation. j. Supervisor initial and continuing Fitness-For-Duty and Continued Behavioral Observation Program training will reinforce FPL's expectation of each Supervisor's obligations to notify the Security Department of any potential trustworthiness and reliability issues. k. At St. Lucie, FPL validated that each fleet nuclear policy was appropriately implemented in a site implementing procedure. FPL will conduct an extent of condition review to validate the implementation of nuclear policies throughout the fleet. l. FPL agrees to complete all corrective actions and enhancements identified in this paragraph 4 (items a. through k.) within six months of the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order. 5. The NRC and FPL agree that the above elements will be incorporated into a Confirmatory Order. 6. In consideration of the commitments delineated in Item 4 above, the NRC agrees to exercise enforcement discretion to forego issuance of a Notice of Violation against FPL for all matters discussed in the NRC's letter to FPL of April 2, 2008 (EA-07-321). 7. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant and FPL. On June 10, 2008, the Licensee consented to issuance of this Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. The Licensee further agreed that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing. IV Since the licensee has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Order. I find that the Licensee's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that the Licensee's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and the Licensee's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, *it is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16 are modified as follows: a. FPL will issue a fleet-wide training brief to managers and supervisors reinforcing the requirements of NP-415, the corporate policy governing Denial of Unescorted Access to FPL's Nuclear Facilities, and the site implementing procedures on access control. b. FPL will revise the site administrative procedures on access control as necessary to ensure that they require that contractor representatives and supervisors immediately notify FPL management of any incident or behavior that may call into question the trustworthiness or reliability of an individual. c. Site-specific Control and Acceptance of Contracted Services procedures will be revised as necessary to ensure that the NP-415 requirements are reviewed by the Site Technical Representative
(STRs)as part of the termination request process. FPL will also conduct a review of existing procedures related to contractor oversight and administration to ensure that the processes therein properly reflect the access control responsibilities of FPL. d. All STRs will receive a training bulletin that reinforces management expectations regarding FPL ownership of access control as part of the procedure revision. The initial and continuing training lesson plan will be revised to ensure that STRs, supervisors and managers understand management expectations regarding FPL ownership of access control. e. FPL will review fleet-wide the site administrative procedures for access control to ensure they require an express declaration of favorable or unfavorable termination, and to ensure that contractors are not allowed to manage their own access terminations without FPL management or STR approval. f. Plant management will reinforce management expectations via a fleet-wide training brief to all managers and supervisors, including the Management Review Committee
(MRC)and the Initial Screening Team (IST), reinforcing the requirements of NP-415 and the site access control procedures. A Lessons-Learned Bulletin will be deployed for all Corrective Action Program Coordinators (CAPCOs) to ensure that identified CRs contain sufficient detail for the MRCs to make informed decisions regarding level, investigation type, and immediate action recommendations. g. A representative from the Security Department will be added as a primary member of the MRC at each site. h. Management will conduct a briefing to MRC members with a focus on the lessons learned from the NNI event and need for conservative action for any issues that question the trustworthiness or reliability of any individual. FPL will institutionalize an MRC Job Familiarization Guide requiring new MRC and IST members to receive an orientation from management on the importance of recognizing potential security concerns while reviewing CRs. i. To address situations where the CR evaluator is not the person primarily responsible for the event/issue, plant procedures will be revised to require the system/process owner to review the evaluator's analysis and approve of the evaluation. j. Supervisor initial and continuing Fitness-For-Duty and Continued Behavioral Observation Program training will reinforce FPL's expectation of each Supervisor's obligations to notify the Security Department of any potential trustworthiness and reliability issues. k. At St. Lucie, FPL validated that each fleet nuclear policy was appropriately implemented in a site implementing procedure. FPL will conduct an extent of condition review to validate the implementation of nuclear policies throughout the fleet. l. FPL agrees to complete all corrective actions and enhancements identified in this paragraph (Section V, items a. through k.) within six months of the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order. The Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by FPL of good cause. VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. If a person other than FPL requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309
(d)and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), any person adversely affected by this Order may, within 20 days of the issuance of this order, in addition to requesting a hearing, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations or error. The motion must state with particularity the reasons why the Order is not based on adequate evidence and must be accompanied by affidavits or other evidence relied on. A request for a hearing or to set aside the immediate effectiveness of this Order must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which became effective on October 15, 2007. The NRC E-filing Final Rule was issued on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49,139) and was codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet or, in some cases, to mail copies on electronic optical storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements associated with E-Filing, at least five
(5)days prior to the filing deadline the requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any NRC proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances when the requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM _ to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate also is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for a hearing through EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its document through EIE. To be timely, electronic filings must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 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 document on those participants separately. Therefore, any others who wish to participate in the proceeding (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request is filed so that they may 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 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. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their works. VII In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. A request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 13th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-14317 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-305] Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Kewaunee Power Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering issuance of an amendment pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.90, for Facility Operating License No. DPR-43, issued to Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS), located in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would revise the facility operating license by removing condition 2.C(5), “Fuel Burnup,” which had limited the peak rod average burnup to 60 gigawatt-days per metric ton urnanium (GWD/MTU) until completion of an NRC environmental assessment supporting an increased limit. The proposed action would allow an increase of the maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62 GWD/MTU. The licensee has procedures in place to ensure that maximum rod burnup will not exceed 62 GWD/MTU. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 2, 2007. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action to delete the license condition for fuel burnup would allow a higher maximum rod average burnup of 62 GWD/MTU, which would allow for more effective fuel management. If the amendment is not approved, the licensee will not be provided the opportunity to increase maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62 GWD/MTU and allow fuel management flexibility. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action In this environmental assessment regarding the impacts of the use of extended burnup fuel beyond 60 GWD/MTU, the Commission is relying on the results of the updated study conducted for NRC by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), entitled “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU” (NUREG/CR-6703, PNNL-13257, January 2001). Environmental impacts of high burnup fuel up to 75 GWD/MTU were evaluated in the study, but some aspects of the review were limited to evaluating the impacts of the extended burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU because of the need for additional data on the effect of extended burnup on gap release fractions. All the aspects of the fuel-cycle were considered during the study, from mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication through normal reactor operation, transportation, waste management, and storage of spent fuel. The amendment would allow KPS to extend lead rod average burnup to 62 GWD/MTU. The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety, and would have no adverse affect on the probability of any accident. For the accidents that involve damage or melting of the fuel in the reactor core, fuel rod integrity has been shown to be unaffected by extended burnup under consideration; therefore, the probability of an accident will not be affected. For the accidents in which core remains intact, the increased burnup may slightly change the mix of fission products that could be released in the event of a serious accident, but because the radionuclides contributing most to the dose are short-lived, increased burnup would not have an effect on the consequences of a serious accident beyond the previously evaluated accident scenarios. Increases in projected consequences of postulated accidents associated with fuel burnup up to 62 GWD/MTU are not considered significant, and remain well below regulatory limits. Regulatory limits on radiological effluent releases are independent of burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 ensure that any release of gaseous, liquid or solid radiological effluents to unrestricted areas is kept “As Low As is Reasonably Achievable.” Therefore, NRC staff concludes that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount of gaseous radiological effluents released into the environment as a result of the proposed action, nor will there be a significant increase in the amount of liquid radiological effluents or solid radiological effluents released into the environment. The proposed action will not change normal plant operating conditions. No changes are expected in the fuel handling, operational or storing processes. There will be no significant changes in radiation levels during these evolutions. No significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure is expected to occur. The use of extended irradiation will not change the potential environmental impacts of incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel or the accident risks associated with spent fuel transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5 years after being discharged from the reactor. The PNNL report for the NRC (NUREG/CR-6703, January 2001), concluded that doses associated with incident-free transportation of spent fuel with burnup to 75 GWD/MTU are bounded by the doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4 for all regions of the country, based on the dose rates from the shipping casks being maintained within regulatory limits. Increased fuel burnup will decrease the annual discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, which will postpone the need to remove spent fuel from the pool. NUREG/CR-6703 determined that no increase in environmental effects of spent fuel transportation accidents are expected as a result of increasing fuel burnup to 75 GWD/MTU. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or on endangered and/or threatened species and their habitats are expected. The proposed action does not involve any historical or archaeological sites. The proposed action will not change the method of generating electricity or the method of handling any influents from the environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of this amendment. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. For more detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of extended fuel burnup, please refer to the study conducted by PNNL for the NRC, entitled “Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU” (NUREG/CR-6073, PNL-13257, January 2001, ADAMS Accession No. ML010310298). The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the amendment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Kewaunee Power Station, dated December 1972. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on June 12, 2008, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Mr. Jeff Kitsembel, of the Public Service Commission, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated July 2, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071860075). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Justin C. Poole, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E8-14315 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Issuance of Regulatory Guide AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance and Availability of Regulatory Guide 6.4, Revision 3. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Orr, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6373 or e-mail to *Mark.Orr@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the agency's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 6.4, “Verification of Containment Properties of Sealed Radioactive Sources,” was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide DG-6005. This guide directs the reader to the type of information acceptable to the NRC staff to evaluate and verify the containment properties of sealed radioactive sources. The NRC licenses the manufacture and distribution of devices containing radioactive byproduct material under Title 10, Part 32, “Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items Containing Byproduct Material,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 32). The regulations require, in part, that each application for a specific license to distribute devices containing byproduct material include information on procedures for prototype tests and the results of such tests to demonstrate that the source or device will maintain its integrity during the most severe conditions that are likely to be encountered under normal or accidental conditions of handling, storage, use, and disposal of the sealed radioactive source. This regulatory guide endorses the methods and procedures for evaluation and verification of the containment properties of sealed radioactive sources contained in the current revision of NUREG-1556, Volume 3, “Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses: Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and Registration” as a process that has been found acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting the regulatory requirements. Since the publication of Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 6.4 in August 1980, the NRC has revised the requirements for byproduct material containments in 10 CFR Part 32 to implement a risk-informed, performance-based approach to regulation. NUREG-1556 incorporates this revised approach. II. Further Information In January 2008, DG-6005 was published with a public comment period of 60 days from the issuance of the guide. No comments were received and the public comment period closed on April 18, 2008. Electronic copies of Regulatory Guide 6.4, Revision 3 are available through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* . In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4209, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen C. O'Connor, Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E8-14314 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. PI2008-1; Order No. 83] Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Changes in the law governing the nation's postal system mandate adoption of service performance measurement and reporting systems for market dominant products, which include First-Class Mail. This notice presents a service measurement and reporting plan for public review and comment. The comments will assist the Commission in formulating its position on the plan. DATES: Comments are due July 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulatory History* , 72 FR 72395 (December 20, 2007). I. Background Section 301 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3218, requires the Postal Service, in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission), to establish by regulation a set of modern service standards for market dominant products. 1 The Postal Service completed this initial task with the publication of “Modern Service Standards for Market-Dominant Products” as a final rule, effective December 19, 2007. 2 1 Section 301 of the PAEA is codified at 39 U.S.C. 3691. 2 *See* 72 FR 72216 (December 19, 2007) (to be codified at 39 CFR parts 121 and 122). By statute, the service standards must be measured by an objective external performance measurement system, unless the Commission approves the use of an internal measurement system. 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2). The Postal Service is in the process of developing its performance measurement system, and has kept the Commission informed of its progress through a series of meetings to discuss service performance measurement issues. The Commission has solicited public input on the Postal Service's measurement system proposals by providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the Postal Service's November 2007 draft Service Performance Measurement plan. 3 3 PRC Order No. 48, December 4, 2007; 72 FR 72395 (December 20, 2007). Since November, the Postal Service has made significant progress in working with its external measurement vendors and working through the implementation of the internal Intelligent Mail Barcode system. The result of this progress has led to a continuous refinement of the Service Performance Measurement plan. The Commission is in the process of preparing a reply to the Postal Service's most recent plan which will address the proposals for internal versus external measurement systems and the proposals for data reporting. The text of the June 2008 version of the Service Performance Measurement plan appears below the signature line of this order. The perspective of the mailing community will aid the Commission in developing its reply to the Postal Service and help the Commission carry out its performance measurement responsibilities under the PAEA. Interested persons are invited to comment on any or all aspects of the proposed service performance measurement and reporting systems. This provides an opportunity for those that previously commented to update their comments, and for those that have yet to comment to provide initial comments. Comments are due July 9, 2008. All comments will be available for review on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov* . II. United States Postal Service Service Performance Measurement A. Glossary of Terms The description of the approach for service performance measurement includes references to certain postal terminology. For clarification, the following brief definitions and descriptions are provided. The *Intelligent Mail® barcode (IMb)* is a height-modulated barcode that encodes up to 31-digits of mailpiece data. The IMb combines and expands the capabilities of the POSTNET barcode and the Planet Code® barcode into one unique barcode and is intended to replace the POSTNET and Planet Code barcodes by May 2010. A *service standard* is defined as “a stated goal for service achievement for each mail class.” *See Publication 32, Glossary of Postal Terms* (May 1997, updated through July 5, 2007). The service standard for each market-dominant mail service incorporates the days-to-deliver for each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair within the Postal Service network. The standards serve as the benchmark for measuring service performance. The *service performance* is the number of calendar days from the “start-the-clock” to the “stop-the-clock”. However, if the day of the “stop-the-clock” event is immediately after a non-delivery day (Sunday or a holiday), then one day is subtracted from the service performance measurement calculation for each consecutive non-delivery day preceding the delivery day. For *inclusion* in service performance measurement, a mail piece, container/handling unit, or mailing must pass verification and meet the applicable inclusion criteria listed in the appendix to this document. Verification is a system of checks used to determine if a mailing is properly prepared and if the correct postage is paid. The *critical entry time (CET)* is the latest time that a reasonable amount of a class of mail can be received at designated induction points in the postal network for it to be processed and dispatched in time to meet service standards. The *“start-the-clock”* is the date and time when the mail piece enters the mailstream. If the Postal Service accepts a mail piece before the posted CET for that day, the day of entry is designated as the “start-the-clock” date. If the mail piece is accepted after the CET or dropped at a collection box, business mail chute, or Post Office location after the last posted pickup time or on a day when pickup does not occur, the mail piece has a “start-the-clock” date of the following applicable acceptance day. *“Start-the-clock” Day zero (or Day-0)* is the date when the clock starts for purposes of service measurement. The *“stop-the-clock”* is the date on which delivery occurs or is initially attempted. A *Customer/Supplier Agreement (C/SA)* is a written notice that confirms, for a commercial mailer, the origin-entry acceptance window during which mail that meets applicable preparation requirements will be considered to have been entered into the postal network on “start-the-clock Day zero,” for purposes of service performance measurement. The notice may include mail containerization specifications, designated postal mail facility entry locations and time-sensitive mail entry windows. The *Annual Compliance Report* includes the national annual service performance report for market-dominant products and is subject to compliance review by the Postal Regulatory Commission on a fiscal year basis. A *postal area* is the administrative level directly below national headquarters and is comprised of multiple subordinate *postal districts* . There are currently nine areas that span the entirety of the postal network; these nine areas are comprised of a total of 80 subordinate districts. In *service variance reports* , the Postal Service reports the cumulative percentage for mail pieces delivered after the applicable service standard. The Postal Service refers to the delivery performance of pieces delivered after the service standard as “Within +X” days of the standard. The following are examples of calculating service variance: Table 1.—Examples of Calculating Service Variance—May 08 [Adapted from the original, which can be viewed on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/daily-listing* )] Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday April 28 29 30 May 1 2 3 4 Example One. Non-Delivery Day. 5 6 7 8 Day Zero 9 Day One 10 Day Two 11 Day Three Mail Entered After CET with 2 Day Service Standard Non-Delivery Day. 12 Day Four 13 14 15 16 17 18 Actual Delivery Day Example Two. Non-Delivery Day. 19 20 21 22 Day Zero 23 Day One 24 Day Two 25 Day Three Mail Entered Prior to CET with 3 Day Service Standard Non-Delivery Day. 26 Day Four 27 Day Five 28 29 30 31 June 1 Holiday Actual Delivery Day Non-Delivery Day. Example 1—Mail was entered after CET on Wednesday and delivered on Monday with a two-day service standard. Since the entry was after Wednesday's CET, day zero is now Thursday. Actual Delivery is the number of days it took (calendar days) to deliver the mail (Thursday to Monday) or 4 days. Expected Delivery is the service standard, which in this case is 2 days. The service performance measurement is Actual Delivery Day
(4)minus Expected Delivery
(2)minus any non-delivery days between the Expected Delivery Day and the Actual Delivery Day
(1)= 1. Example 2—Mail was entered prior to CET on Thursday and delivered on Tuesday with a three-day service standard. Actual Delivery is the time it took (calendar days) to deliver the mail (Thursday to Tuesday) or 5 days. Expected Delivery is the service standard, which in this case is 3 days, plus 2 days since Sunday and Monday are non-delivery days. The service performance measurement is Actual Delivery Day
(5)minus Expected Delivery
(5)minus any non-delivery days between the Expected Delivery Day and the Actual Delivery Day
(0)= 0. Therefore, the mail piece was delivered on time. Definition of Terms: 1. The Actual Delivery Day is the calendar day of the “stop-the-clock” for a mail piece. 2. Non-Delivery Days are nationally recognized days on which the Postal Service does not deliver mail to delivery points. Sundays and holidays are non-delivery days. Non-delivery days may also occur by Presidential proclamation such as a national day of mourning. 3. The Expected Delivery Day is calculated by adding the applicable service standard to the “start-the-clock” date for a mail piece. When that date lands on a non-delivery day, the expected delivery date becomes the next possible delivery date. 4. Service variance, represented as “Within +X”, is the number of delivery days between the Expected Delivery Date for the mail piece and the Actual Delivery Date of the piece. “Within +X” is calculated by subtracting the Expected Delivery Date from the Actual Delivery Date and then subtracting any Non-Delivery Days between the Actual and Expected Delivery Dates from the result: X = Actual Delivery Day−Expected Delivery Day−Non-Delivery Days between Actual and Expected Delivery Days 1. Introduction Among many requirements, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
(PAEA)instructs the United States Postal Service (Postal Service) to establish modern service standards for its market-dominant mail products. According to the law, these standards should be designed “to provide a system of objective external performance measurements for each market-dominant product as a basis for measurement of Postal Service performance.” However, with the approval of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), an internal measurement system may be implemented instead of an external system. 4 4 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198, 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2). The service performance measurement systems used for measurement will evolve over time as capacity increases. For example, the measurement system may be modified annually pending the outcome of the annual service standards review process. The measurement systems are designed to provide the Postal Service and its customers with data sufficiently accurate and reliable for purposes of assessing the quality of mail service in a cost effective manner. These data are expected to provide the PRC with the ability to perform its responsibilities under the PAEA with a high degree of confidence. The following table summarizes the measurement system at full rollout. Table 2.—Postal Service Measurement Approach at Full Rollout 1 [Measurement approach by mail segment] Single-piece Letters Flats Parcels Presort Letters Flats Parcels First-Class Mail EXFC EXFC Start: Acceptance scan Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility EXFC as Proxy 2 Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility. Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan Stop: External reporting Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. Single-Piece First-Class Mail International IMMS 3 EXFC as proxy 4 Single-Piece First-Class Mail parcels as proxy. 5 N/A N/A N/A. Periodicals 6 N/A N/A N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility N/A. Stop: External reporting Stop: External reporting N/A. Standard Mail N/A N/A N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility. Stop: External reporting Stop: External reporting 7 Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. Package Services N/A N/A 8 Start: Acceptance scan N/A Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility Start: Documented Arrival Time at Postal facility. Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan Stop: External reporting Stop: Delivery Confirmation delivery scan. 1 Special Services are not included in Table 1 as they have different methods to “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” from the market-dominant mail products. 2 The Postal Service will use the External First-Class Mail Measurement System
(EXFC)measurement for single-piece flats as a proxy for Presort First-Class Mail flats due to the very small volume of Presort flats. 3 The International Mail Measurement System
(IMMS)is an external measurement system for which an independent measurement contractor seeds mail into the mailstream. 4 The EXFC measurement for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats will serve as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International flats due to the small volume in the latter category. After clearing customs, single-piece First-Class Mail International flats enter the domestic mailstream and are handled with domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats. 5 The Postal Service will use the measurement for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail parcels as a proxy for single-piece First-Class Mail International parcels. 6 Two mailer-operated external systems, Red Tag and Time Inc.'s DelTrak, will be used for Periodicals measurement during FY 2009, as the Postal Service transitions to a long-term internal solution. 2. Measurement Approach For purpose of service performance measurement, the Postal Service will continue use of the External First-Class Measurement system
(EXFC)for single-piece First-Class Mail letters and flats and the International Mail Measurement System
(IMMS)for single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. 5 For letter- and flat-shaped Presort mail within First-Class Mail, Periodicals, and Standard Mail services, the Postal Service uses an external measurement approach that supplements mail scans available from an internal Intelligent Mail system with externally collected data. For parcel-shaped mail within First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Package Services, 6 the Postal Service uses an internal solution based on Delivery Confirmation scans obtained at acceptance and delivery. Additionally, the performance measurement of various domestic special services uses an internal measurement approach. 5 The only major type of International Mail classified as market-dominant is single-piece First-Class Mail International. For single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and parcels, the Postal Service will use the domestic flats and parcel measurements as proxies, as explained in Section 4.1. 6 Package Services market-dominant products include Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, and Media Mail, by operation of 39 U.S.C. 3621. For purposes of service standard establishment and service performance measurement, these market-dominant products are grouped together as Package Services due to their relatively small volumes. Destination-entered Standard Mail is subject to national Critical Entry Times (CETs). All other classes of mail are subject to locally-defined facility CETs. A Customer/Supplier Agreement between a bulk mailer and the Postal Service may identify an alternate acceptance window. In the case where a Customer/Supplier Agreement exists, it is the responsibility of the mailer to enter mail within the agreed-upon acceptance window. Customer/Supplier Agreements may include terms regarding seasonal volumes or split processing windows. The two critical elements for service performance measurement of a mail piece are the date and time when the mail piece enters the mailstream, otherwise known as the “start-the-clock,” and the date when delivery occurs or is attempted, otherwise known as the “stop-the-clock”. 7 The mail piece service performance measurement can be viewed as the difference between the “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” dates, excluding non-delivery days, which is then compared to the established service standard for the mail category. When assessing mail piece service performance, relevant facility Critical Entry Times
(CETs)must be taken into account. For commercial mail, Customer/Supplier Agreements (C/SAs) may also be employed and used to assign the “start-the-clock” Day-0 for purposes of service performance measurement. If the Postal Service accepts a mail piece either before the CET or within the acceptance window specified in the C/SA on a given acceptance day, the mail piece will have a “start-the-clock” date of the current day. If the mail piece is accepted after the CET, and outside the acceptance window specified in the C/SA, the mail piece will have a “start-the-clock” date of the following applicable acceptance day for that facility. 8 7 Mail must pass verification before being included in service measurement. 8 National CETs have been established for Standard Mail destination-entered at Sectional Center Facilities
(SCFs)and Bulk Mail Centers (BMCs). 2.1 Presort Letter and Flat-Shaped Mail For Presort First-Class Mail, Standard and Periodical letters and for Standard and Periodical flats, the Postal Service's service performance measurement system uses documented arrival time at the postal facility to “start-the-clock,” and an external, third-party “stop-the-clock” performed by reporters with scanners in their homes. Additional data on mail piece tracking from Intelligent Mail barcode
(IMb)scans are also used to supplement the external data. However, data collected by the Postal Service are provided to an independent, external contractor to calculate service measurement and compile the necessary reports. To facilitate an accurate “start-the-clock” measurement, mailers prepare mail with IMb's and, as a part of the acceptance process, submit electronic mailing information that describes the mail profile. Mailings are verified at acceptance to ensure they meet applicable preparation requirements necessary to qualify for service performance measurement. 9 For mailers that meet the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option, the Postal Service makes mail arrival time and mail preparation quality information available. 9 Such requirements are in addition to those which must be met to qualify for mailing within a particular product or price category. The external measurement contractor determines service performance based on the elapsed time between the “start-the-clock” event recorded by the Postal Service and the “stop-the-clock” event scan recorded by anonymous households and small businesses that report delivery information directly to the contractor. The end-to-end service measure consists of two parts:
(1)How long mail pieces take to get through processing, and
(2)how long mail takes from the last processing scan to delivery. The second portion is used as a delivery factor differential to determine the percent of mail that is delivered on the last processing date and the percent delivered after the last processing date. For Presort letters and non-saturation flats entered at Delivery Units that do not receive processing scans, postal personnel scan IMb's to indicate intention to deliver that day. By comparing the date of the Postal Service's final IMb scan with the reported delivery date for these mail pieces, the external measurement contractor calculates the delivery factor differential for each mail category. With this measurement approach, the core service performance score is augmented by data provided by external reporters, which provides a cost-effective method for end-to-end measurement. External scanning offers many benefits to the Postal Service, the PRC, and mailers concerning the accuracy and auditability of service performance measurement: Delivery sampling data are used to provide the granularity required for district level reporting, and association of the reporter scan data to the final mail processing equipment scan is used to assess delivery failures. The use of external reporters allows for barcoded mail that falls out of automation to be included in service performance measurement. To ensure that the external service measurement contractor is able to measure service performance for properly prepared and addressed mail pieces, the Postal Service provides the contractor with mail quality information that it derives by scanning IMb's. This measurement approach leverages IMb data from internal systems for Presort letters and flat-shaped mail to enhance service measurement. It also allows for: Greater representation of mail characteristics; richer diagnostics; and robust and reliable measurement at low cost. 2.2 Measurement System Requirements for Presort Mailers of Letters, Cards, and Flats The Postal Service performs service measurement on mail that satisfies generally applicable mail preparation requirements and also meets the requirements of the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option, which gives the Postal Service the ability to identify unique mail pieces in the mailstream. These service measurement requirements include, unique Intelligent Mail® barcodes on mail pieces, trays and containers where appropriate, and appointment scheduling for Destination Bulk Mail Center (DBMC), Destination Area Distribution Center (DADC), and Destination Sectional Center Facility
(DSCF)drop shipments, and for authorized mailers choosing to transport origin-entered, postal-verified mail to downstream facilities. They also may include electronic submission of postage statements and mailing documentation. More information on the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option can be found in **Federal Register** notices 10 and will be published in future revisions of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). 11 10 *See* 73 FR 1158 (January 7, 2008) and 73 FR 23393 (April 30, 2008). 11 The requirements for service performance measurement are separate from addressing, presortation, containerization, or other requirements generally governing price eligibility published in the Mail Classification Schedule or USPS Domestic Mail Manual. 2.3 Parcels For parcel-shaped First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Package Services, the Postal Service uses an internal solution based on Delivery Confirmation scans obtained at acceptance and delivery. For reporting purposes, First-Class Mail parcels are included with the First-Class Mail aggregate performance results and Standard Mail parcels are included with the Standard Mail aggregate performance. For parcel-shaped Retail mail for which Delivery Confirmation service has been purchased, the Postal Service uses the Delivery Confirmation scan at the retail counter as the “start-the-clock” event. Parcel-shaped Presort mail uses the documented arrival time at the postal facility as the “start-the-clock”. For Presort parcels, validation similar to that for letters and flats is performed to ensure that the parcels were dropped at the correct postal facility. The “stop-the-clock” event is the Delivery Confirmation scan performed by postal personnel at delivery. 12 Since postal personnel scan pieces with a Delivery Confirmation barcode at delivery, the measurement system is truly an end-to-end performance system. In addition, the sender has access to the Delivery Confirmation “stop-the-clock” information from the Track & Confirm function at the Postal Service's public Web site, *http://www.usps.com* and, thus, can independently verify the delivery date. 12 Either by a carrier on a delivery route or a clerk in a Post Office Box section as delivery is completed or attempted. In accordance with section 3652 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the Postal Service is required to report measures of the quality of service on an annual basis. The Postal Service's proposal for service measurement goes far beyond annual reporting and will instead provide quarterly reporting for all market-dominant products, almost entirely at a district level. 2.4 Reporting The Postal Service uses an independent, external contractor to prepare service performance reports for domestic First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. The Postal Service will continue collecting performance data for parcels within each domestic market-dominant mail class based on Delivery Confirmation acceptance and delivery scans. The Postal Service sends performance data for First-Class Mail parcels and Standard Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting of the performance of each mail class. Quarterly reports include data on the percentage of mail delivered on-time, as well as the percentage of mail delivered within 1-day, 2-days, and 3-days of the standard being measured. Annual compliance reports for each market-dominant product will include the annual target and the annual percentage of mail delivered on time. For Special Services, the Postal Service reports a performance index that combines the measurement of a number of Special Services into a single index for comparison on an annual basis. 3 First-Class Mail 3.1 Background First-Class Mail pieces represented 45.2 percent of the overall mail volume in FY2007, 13 with nearly 96 billion pieces. Of First-Class Mail, 41.3 percent are single-piece cards, letters or flats, 0.4 percent are single-piece parcels, 57.1 percent are Presort cards and letters, 1.0 percent are Presort flats, and 0.2 percent are Presort parcels. The Postal Service plans to measure each of these different segments and report a weighted average measurement separately for presort and single-piece categories. Below, Table 3—First-Class Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of First-Class Mail by entry volume and shape. The table also illustrates the percentage of the overall mailstream that each of these First-Class Mail segments represents. 13 *See http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/RPW_FY_2007.pdf.* Table 3.—First-Class Mail Volume Single-Piece Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Parcels (percent) Presort Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Parcels (percent) Total (percent) First-Class Mail 38.0 3.3 0.4 57.1 1.0 0.2 100 Overall Mailstream 17 1.5 0.2 25.8 0.4 0.1 45.2 3.2 First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters and Flats Collection boxes and office building chutes are the primary methods for entering First-Class Mail single-piece letters and flats. Combined, this mail represents 18.7 percent of the total mailstream. Service performance is measured though EXFC. EXFC continuously measures nearly all 3-digit ZIP Code service areas. EXFC mail pieces are designed to resemble the rest of the mailstream; pieces are hand-or machine-addressed, stamped or metered, and are of different colors, sizes, and weights. Quality reviews are conducted for droppers and reporters, and data are reviewed on a daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. 3.2.1 “Start-the-Clock” The date and time that the mail piece is dropped into a collection box or business mail chute is the “start-the-clock”. Mail piece droppers report the “start-the-clock” directly to the external service measurement contractor. If a mail piece is dropped at a collection box, business mail chute, or Post Office location after the last posted pickup time or on a day when pickup does not occur, the next pickup day is the “start-the-clock”. The induction points for the “start-the-clock” are determined before the start of each fiscal quarter. External droppers are provided with a listing of collection boxes that they are allowed to use for their assigned inductions in a given 3-digit ZIP Code service area. Enough locations are chosen to ensure a certain amount of coverage, to accommodate any unforeseen issues that may arise with the selected induction points. The collection boxes are chosen in a random selection process with replacement, meaning that the same induction location may be chosen multiple times. The induction points are weighted going into the selection process, so that locations in 5-digit ZIP Code areas with a larger number of collection boxes have a greater chance of being selected than locations in ZIP Codes areas with a smaller number of collection boxes. The external contractor monitors drop compliance continuously throughout the quarter to ensure proper diversification of mail locations. EXFC origin-destination mail flows are based on estimated 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair volume flows for corresponding 3-digit ZIP Code pairs over the past 12 quarters. The number of pieces entered from each postal administrative district is proportionate to the corresponding origin-destination volumes by service standard. 3.2.2 “Stop-the-Clock” The date that the mail piece is received at a household, small business, or Post Office Box is reported by the recipient as the “stop-the-clock” event directly to the external contractor for purposes of EXFC. The service performance is the number of calendar days from the “start-the-clock” to the “stop-the-clock”. However, if the day of the stop-the-clock event occurs immediately after a non-delivery day (Sunday or a holiday), then one day is subtracted from the service performance calculation for each consecutive non-delivery day. 3.3 First-Class Mail Presort Letters and Cards The primary induction method for Presort letters and cards is bulk entry at postal mail processing plants and Business Mail Entry Units (BMEUs) across the United States. Presort First-Class Mail letters and cards represent 25.8 percent of the total mailstream. The Postal Service's measurement approach uses externally generated delivery scans of mail pieces containing IMb's by reporters to record delivery dates. In combination with Intelligent Mail scan data collected by the Postal Service, this approach enables the granular level of reporting being sought by the mailing industry. 3.3.1 “Start-the-Clock” Full Service IMb mailers are required to submit electronic mailing documentation listing the IMb's used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation requirements. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards is excluded from service performance measurement. If a mailer decides to rework the mail so that it meets preparation requirements or decides to pay additional postage, the mail will be included in service performance measurement but it may have a new “start-the-clock” Day-0. Mail “start-the-clock” times and mail preparation quality information are made available to Full Service IMb mailers. 3.3.2 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters use scanners capable of reading IMb's to record the “stop-the-clock” delivery event for individual mail pieces they receive and to transmit scan data to the external reporting system. By comparing the date of the final Postal Service processing scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external measurement contractor calculates a delivery factor for the service performance of First-Class Mail Presort letters and cards. This delivery factor is combined with postal mail processing data to determine the end-to-end service performance measurement for mail that may not receive an external reporter scan. The use of external reporters allows for mail that is manually processed and that falls out of automation to be included in service performance measurement. In these cases, the external reporters record the actual “stop-the-clock” event and provide that information to the external measurement contractor, which calculates the service performance for those pieces. 3.4 First-Class Mail Presort Flats Presort First-Class Mail flats represent only 0.4 percent of the total mailstream, producing one of the smallest mail categories. The Postal Service uses the EXFC measurement of single-piece First-Class Mail flats as a proxy for Presort flats. In order to determine a more accurate estimate for First-Class Mail Presort flats, the portion of EXFC that reflects this mail category, i.e., machine-addressed flats, rather than hand-addressed, is used. If the external measurement contractor determines that sufficient volume of Presort Flats contains IMb's, the measurement system for Presort letters will be employed for Presort flats. 3.5 First-Class Mail Retail Parcels The Postal Service measures service performance for this mail via Delivery Confirmation barcode scans. For reporting purposes, performance results are sent to the external measurement contractor for inclusion in aggregate First-Class Mail service performance results. First-Class Mail Retail parcels represent 0.4 percent of all First-Class Mail and less than 0.2 percent of the total mailstream. 3.5.1 “Start-the-Clock” Primarily, the “start-the-clock” event occurs at retail counters when customers purchase Delivery Confirmation for parcels they intend to mail. When postal retail personnel apply the Delivery Confirmation PS Form 152 to these parcels, they scan the unique Delivery Confirmation barcode on each form. The scan is captured via either a Point of Sale
(POS)or Integrated Retail Terminal
(IRT)at the retail counter or an Intelligent Mail scanning device. Since the customer is present at the “start-the-clock” event and receives a time-stamped receipt with purchase, there are several validation points for the “start-the-clock” event. 3.5.2 “Stop-the-Clock” At delivery, postal personnel scan the Delivery Confirmation PS Form 152 barcode to denote delivery or that delivery was attempted, either of which serves to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. More information on delivery and attempted delivery can be found in the Appendix. 3.6 First-Class Mail Presort Parcels First-Class Mail presort parcels represent under 0.2 percent of all First-Class Mail and less than 0.1 percent of the total mailstream. One differentiating characteristic of First-Class Mail Presort parcels is the propensity of senders to purchase Delivery Confirmation service. Using Delivery Confirmation scan data, performance results are calculated by the Postal Service and then sent to the external measurement contractor for inclusion into the First-Class Mail service aggregate performance results. 3.6.1 “Start-the-Clock” For service performance measurement of First-Class Mail Presort parcels, mailers use Delivery Confirmation and will submit electronic mailing documentation listing the unique Delivery Confirmation barcodes used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets applicable mail preparation requirements. Mail that does not meet mail preparation requirements is excluded from service performance measurement. If a mailer decides to rework the mail so that it meets preparation requirements or decides to pay additional postage, the mail will be included in service performance measurement but it may have a new “start-the-clock” Day-0. The “start-the-clock” event is the documented arrival time of the mailing at the Postal Service acceptance facility. Arrival times are made available to mailers. 3.6.2 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal personnel scan the Delivery Confirmation barcode upon delivery and can denote the delivery or attempted delivery, either of which serves to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. 3.7 Reporting for First-Class Mail 3.7.1 Quarterly Reporting For Single-Piece First-Class Mail, the Postal Service reports on-time service performance separately by day (i.e., overnight, 2-day, and 3-day/4-day/5-day), for each postal district on a quarterly basis. This greatly expands the number of performance measures reported, yet is consistent with the way EXFC currently reports single-piece First-Class Mail service. The use of data from the final Intelligent Mail scans allows reporting at a higher degree of granularity. The Postal Service sends performance data for First-Class Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting purposes. The quarterly report format for on-time performance of Single-Piece First-Class Mail is as follows: Table 4.—Quarterly Performance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail District Overnight % On-time Two-day % On-time Three-day/four-day/five-day % On-time Capital Metro Area xx xx xx Baltimore District xx xx xx Capital District xx xx xx South Carolina District xx xx xx Greensboro District xx xx xx Mid-Carolinas District xx xx xx No. Virginia District xx xx xx Richmond District xx xx xx A similar report is produced to report quarterly service performance for Presort First-Class Mail. The service variance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail pieces is reported separately as the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The quarterly service variance report format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail is as follows: Table 5.—Quarterly Performance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail Service Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format with Service Variance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail District Overnight Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Two-day Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Three-day/four-day/five-day Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x Baltimore District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x Capital District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x South Carolina District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x Greensboro District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x Richmond District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x A similar service variance report is produced to report quarterly service performance for Presort First-Class Mail. 3.7.2 Annual Reporting Separate national measures are compiled per fiscal year for each First-Class Mail segment (Single-Piece and Presort) and by service standard (one-day, two-day, and three-day/four-day). Annual performance consists of a weighted average for each First-Class Mail segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each district. If the segments are not representatively distributed, the weighting ensures that each district counts for the appropriate portion of the national aggregate. Table 6.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for First-Class Mail Mail class Target (percent) Percent on-time First-Class Mail: Single-Piece Overnight xx xx Single-Piece Two-Day xx xx Single-Piece Three-Day/Four-Day xx xx Presort Overnight xx xx Presort Two-Day xx xx Presort Three-Day/Four-Day xx xx 4 Single-Piece First-Class Mail International 4.1 Background The United States Postal Service accepts outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International pieces for processing and transfer to foreign postal administrations for delivery to their destination address. The service standard for the outbound domestic transit of this mail is the same as for First-Class Mail pieces from the domestic 3-digit ZIP Code of origin to the domestic 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the Postal Service International Service Center
(ISC)designated for that origin is located. 14 14 The postal mail processing network includes a handful of ISCs, each of which serves a region of the postal network and is responsible for conducting the initial international processing for outbound international mail or the final international processing for inbound international mail. For outbound mail, the ISC for a postal network region may be the gateway facility from which mail is transported from the postal network to the custody of a foreign postal administration. In a small percentage of cases, outbound mail may be transported from its designated ISC to another ISC for the outbound gateway processing that precedes its exit from the postal network. Inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International originates from other countries and is destined for delivery to addresses in 3-digit ZIP Code areas of the United States. The service standard for the inbound domestic transit of this mail is the same as for First-Class Mail that originates from the 3-digit ZIP Code in which the designated ISC is located to the 3-digit ZIP Code area of the delivery address. Service performance for the domestic transit of both inbound and outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International is measured through the International Mail Measurement System (IMMS), which is operated by an external service performance measurement contractor. IMMS utilizes only letter-shaped mail pieces, which is the predominant shape of both outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International. The processing of single-piece First-Class Mail International—during either outbound transit from domestic origin to the designated ISC or inbound transit from the designated ISC to the domestic delivery address—is the same as for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail letters and parcels, which are discussed above in sections 3.2 and 3.5, respectively. The domestic transit service standards are the same. Accordingly, the Postal Service will use service performance data for domestic single-piece First-Class Mail flats
(EXFC)and parcels (Delivery Confirmation) as a proxy for estimating the service performance for outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and inbound surface parcels. 4.1.1 “Start-the-Clock” To measure outbound single-piece First-Class Mail International letters service performance, the external contractor arranges for sample international pieces to be commingled with pieces created for the domestic EXFC testing program, which is described above in section 3.2. The date and time that the test pieces are dropped into collection boxes or business mail chutes is the “start-the-clock” event reported by droppers directly to the independent contractor. To test inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International letter service performance, sample letters addressed to reporters in the United States employed by the external contractor are mailed from foreign countries by droppers also employed by the IMMS service performance measurement contractor, which has worldwide operations. To maintain the confidentiality of the program, the identities and addresses of the reporters and droppers (as well as the participating foreign countries of the droppers and receivers) are known only to the contractor. The inbound “start-the-clock” tracking begins with the date and time of the first Postal Service scan of the PLANET Code barcode 15 on a piece at the ISC that first handles the mail. Mailpieces received at the designated ISC on a Sunday or holiday have a “start-the-clock” date of the next processing date. 15 The PLANET Code is a barcode printed on mail pieces by mailers participating in the CONFIRM program. CONFIRM enables mailers to receive detailed scan information about the pieces they mail in order to track mail through the postal network. The PLANET Code will be phased out by May 2010 and replaced by the IMb. 4.1.2 “Stop-the-Clock” As an outbound international mail letter travels through the Postal Service's mail processing system, the PLANET Code information on the piece is captured and used to measure its progress. When the letter is sorted at the designated ISC, it receives an ID tag and/or PLANET Code scan. The “stop-the-clock” for an outbound mail piece is the date of the last scan at this facility. The number of transit days for outbound mail is the difference between the induction date and the last PLANET Code read at the designated ISC. Because the “stop-the-clock” event takes place at an ISC, as opposed to a delivery point, the transit days calculation includes Sundays and holidays. An inbound international mail letter flows through the USPS network from the ISC to the delivery addresses. The “stop-the-clock” event data for inbound mail pieces are the dates on which they are delivered to reporters employed by the service measurement contractor. The reporter is part of the EXFC survey group and is responsible for receiving the mail and reporting the date of delivery. The number of transit days for inbound test mail is the difference between the delivery date and the date of the first PLANET Code read or ID tag at the designated ISC. The service performance is calculated in the same method as described in the Glossary. Because the service standards for both outbound and inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International flats and parcels are based on the domestic transit of such mail, on-time performance is measured against the same set of origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code area service standards as domestic First-Class Mail. 4.2 Reporting Single-Piece First-Class Mail International 4.2.1 Quarterly Reporting Since not all postal administrative districts have sufficient international volumes for statistically representative reporting, the Postal Service reports international quarterly service performance at a postal administrative area level. Each measurement includes the percent delivered on time for outbound and for inbound single-piece First-Class Mail International. All scores are weighted at the area level using proportions derived from a rolling average of estimated volumes for 12 fiscal quarters. The quarterly report format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International is as follows: Table 7.—Quarterly Performance for Single-Piece International Mail; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Area % On-time inbound % On-time outbound Northeast Area xx.x xx.x New York Metro Area xx.x xx.x Eastern Area xx.x xx.x Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x Southeast Area xx.x xx.x Great Lakes Area xx.x xx.x Western Area xx.x xx.x Southwest Area xx.x xx.x Pacific Area xx.x xx.x National xx.x xx.x The service variance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International is reported separately as the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable service standard. The quarterly report format is as follows: Table 8.—Quarterly Performance for Single-Piece International Mail Service Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format with the Service Variance for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Area Inbound Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Outbound Within + 1-day (percent) Within + 2-days (percent) Within + 3-days (percent) Northeast Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x New York Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Eastern Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Southeast Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Great Lakes Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Western Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Pacific Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x National xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x 4.2.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report includes the national measure per fiscal year for the percentage of single-piece First-Class Mail International delivered on time. Annual performance consists of a weighted average that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each of the nine postal administrative areas. If the data are not representatively distributed, the weighting ensures that each area counts for the appropriate portion of the national aggregate. The Annual Compliance Report format for the Single-Piece First-Class Mail International is as follows: Table 9.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report for Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Mail Class Target (percent) % on-time Single-Piece International Mail First-Class Mail xx.x xx.x 5 Standard Mail 5.1 Background Standard Mail pieces represented 49.2 percent of the overall mail volume in FY2007. 16 At over 103 billion mail pieces, it has the largest annual volume of any mail product. By shape, Standard Mail, is 61.1 percent letters, 38.3 percent flats, and 0.6 percent parcels. Table 10—Standard Mail Volume below illustrates the make-up of Standard Mail and illustrates the percentage that Standard Mail letters, flats, and parcels represent in relation to the overall mailstream. Different categories of Standard Mail have different preparation and entry requirements for mailers and thus are measured separately. Accordingly, this section has been separated into the following sub-sections: Non-saturation letters, non-saturation flats, saturation letters and flats, and parcels. 16 *See http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/RDW_FY_2007.pdf.* Table 10.—Standard Mail Volume 1 Presort Letters (percent) Flats (percent) Parcels (percent) Total (percent) Standard Mail 61.1 38.3 0.6 100 Overall Mailstream 30.1 18.8 0.3 49.2 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Table 3 in the plan has been changed to Table 10. 5.2 Standard Mail Non-Saturation Letters The primary induction method for Standard Mail non-saturation letters is bulk entry. The Postal Service bases service performance measurement on the documented arrival time at the postal facility where the mail is accepted, and in-home IMb delivery scan data provided by external reporters. 5.2.1 “Start-the-Clock” Full Service IMb mailers are required to prepare mail with IMb's and submit electronic mailing documentation listing the IMb's used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets preparation requirements. Mail that does not meet mail preparation requirements is excluded from service performance measurement. If a mailer decides to rework the mail so that it meets preparation requirements or decides to pay additional postage, the mail will be included in service performance measurement, but it may have a new “start-the-clock” Day-0. Drop shipment mailers schedule appointments for Standard Mail non-saturation letters in the Postal Service's Facility Access and Shipment Tracking
(FAST)system for DBMC, DADC and DSCF drop shipments. The “start-the-clock” is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service acceptance facility. For mailers that meet the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option, mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information are made available. 5.2.2 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters are equipped with IMb scanners for recording the “stop-the-clock” delivery event for all mail they receive containing an IMb and transmitting data to the external reporting system. By comparing the date of the final postal mail processing scan with the actual receipt date for these pieces, the external service performance measurement contractor calculates a delivery factor for Standard Mail letters. This delivery factor is combined with the mail processing data for Full Service IMb Standard Mail letters that may not receive an external reporter scan to determine the end-to-end service performance measurement. The use of external reporters allows for mail that is not exposed to or that falls out of automation to be included in service performance measurement. The external reporters provide the actual “stop-the-clock” on such pieces, and the external measurement contractor calculates the service performance for those pieces that go to the external reporters. 5.3 Standard Mail Non-Saturation Flats The primary induction method for Standard flats is bulk entry. As of May 2009, mailers of automation non-saturation flats will be required to have a delivery point POSTNET or IMb. Also as of May 2009, in order to qualify for the lowest automation prices, Full Service IMb mailers will be required to apply an IMb on automation non-saturation flats. 5.3.1 “Start-the-Clock” Full Service IMb mailers are required to submit electronic mailing documentation listing the IMb's used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards is excluded from service performance measurement. If a mailer decides to rework the mail so that it meets preparation requirements or decides to pay additional postage, the mail will be included in service performance measurement, but it may have a new “start-the-clock” Day-0. Drop shipment mailers create appointments for Standard Mail flats in the Postal Service's Facility Access and Shipment Tracking
(FAST)system at DBMC, DADC and DSCF facilities. The “start-the-clock” is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service acceptance facility. For mailers that meet the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option, mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information are made available. 5.3.2 “Stop-the-Clock” External reporters are equipped with IMb scanners for use in recording the “stop-the-clock” delivery event for individual mail pieces that bear an IMb and transmitting data to the external reporting system. By comparing the date of the final postal mail processing scan with the receipt date for these pieces, the external service measurement contractor can calculate a delivery factor for the service performance of Standard Mail flats. This delivery factor is combined with the mail processing data that may not receive an external reporter scan to determine the end-to-endservice performance measurement for Standard Mail flats. 5.4 Standard Mail Saturation Letters and Flats For Standard Mail saturation letters and flats, the primary induction method is Sectional Center Facility or Delivery Unit dropped bundles and saturation trays. Due to the distinct characteristics of saturation letters and flats, the Postal Service is proposing a measurement approach specific to these mail types. 5.4.1 “Start-the-Clock” When required, Full Service IMb mailers submit electronic mailing documentation listing the IMb's used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. Mail that does not meet mail preparation standards is excluded from service performance measurement. If a mailer decides to rework the mail so that it meets preparation requirements or decides to pay additional postage, the mail will be included in service performance measurement, but it may have a new “start-the-clock” Day-0. Drop shipment mailers create appointments for Standard Mail in the Postal Service's FAST system at DBMC, DADC and DSCF facilities providing advance notification of the mail profile and arrival times. The “start-the-clock” is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service acceptance facility. For mailers that meet the requirements of the Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option, mail arrival times and mail preparation quality information are made available. 5.4.2 “Stop-the-Clock” As with non-saturation Standard Mail letters and flats, saturation mail with IMb's is scanned by external reporters to “stop-the-clock”. However, unique barcodes are not required on saturation mail. The Postal Service will develop methods for external reporters to capture the “stop-the-clock,” such as requiring training for external reporters to identify saturation mail and have them report delivery of such pieces without an IMb on the date of receipt. These data will be sent to the external reporting system and will be the “stop-the-clock” for the individual mail pieces. The external service measurement contractor calculates the service performance for the pieces that go to the external reporters. 5.5 Standard Mail Parcels Many Standard Mail parcel shippers choose to purchase special services such as Delivery Confirmation for their mail. The Postal Service performs service measurement on Standard Mail parcels that pass verification and use Delivery Confirmation service. For reporting purposes, results are calculated by the Postal Service then sent to the external measurement contractor for inclusion into aggregate Standard Mail results. Full Service implementation will include electronic submission of postage statements and mailing documentation, unique Intelligent Mail Package barcodes, unique Intelligent Mail Container barcodes, and appointment scheduling for drop shipments at DBMC, DADC and DSCF facilities. These requirements are separate from addressing, presortation, containerization, or other specifications generally governing price eligibility. 5.5.1 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Standard Mail parcels is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service facility. 5.5.2 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal personnel scan Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery of parcels for which Delivery Confirmation service has been purchased. They can denote the delivery or attempted delivery, either of which serves to “stop-the-clock”. 5.6 Reporting for Standard Mail 5.6.1 Quarterly Reporting Quarterly reporting for Standard Mail reflects performance by postal district separately for destination entry mail and end-to-end mail. Reporting destination entry mail and end-to-end mail separately by service standard day significantly expands the number of performance measures reported and the number of external reporters required. The measurements provide ample detail to assess the quality of service without becoming cost prohibitive for the Postal Service. The Postal Service sends performance data for Standard Mail parcels to the external service performance contractor for consolidated reporting purposes. The quarterly report format for Standard Mail is as follows: Table 11.—Quarterly Performance for Standard Mail; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Standard Mail District Destination entry On-time (Percent) End-to-end On-time (Percent) Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x Baltimore District xx.x xx.x Capital District xx.x xx.x Greater South Carolina District xx.x xx.x Greensboro District xx.x xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x xx.x Richmond District xx.x xx.x The service variance for Standard Mail pieces is reported separately as the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The quarterly report format for Standard Mail service variance is as follows: Table 12.—Quarterly Performance for Standard Mail Service Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Standard Mail Service Variance District Destination entry Within +1-day (Percent) Within +2-days (Percent) Within +3-days (Percent) End-to-end Within +1-day (Percent) Within +2-days (Percent) Within +3-days (Percent) Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Baltimore District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Capital District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Greater South Carolina District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Greensboro District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x Richmond District xx.x xx.x xx xx.x xx.x xx.x 5.6.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service reports a national aggregate measure per fiscal year for the percentage of Standard Mail delivered on time. The Annual Compliance Report includes letter, flat, and parcel-shaped Standard Mail. It consists of a weighted average for each Standard Mail segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each postal administrative district. If the segments are not representatively distributed, the weighting ensures that each district counts for the appropriate portion of the national aggregate. The Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report format for Standard Mail is as follows: Table 13.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Standard Mail Mail class Target (percent) Percent on-time Standard Mail Letters, Flats, and Parcels xx.x xx.x 6 Periodicals 6.1 Background Periodicals represented just over 4 percent of the overall mail volume in FY2007, 17 with 8.8 billion mail pieces. Periodicals consist of letter- and flat-shaped pieces, most of which are destination-dropped. The Postal Service uses the same interim service measurement approach for both letters and flats, which relies on external reports generated by Red Tag and DelTrak. 17 *See http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/RPW_FY_2007.pdf* . 6.2 Periodicals Letters and Flats All Periodicals are bulk entry or drop shipments, and the vast majority of the volume is flats. Table 14—Periodicals Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of Periodicals Mail. It also illustrates the percentage that each Periodicals shape represents within the overall mailstream. Table 14.—Periodicals Mail Volume 1 Letters (Percent) Flats (Percent) Total (Percent) Periodicals 1.5 98.5 100.0 Overall Mailstream 0.1 4.1 4.2 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Table 3 in the plan has been changed to Table 14. 6.2.1 Interim Approach Until the Intelligent Mail system has sufficient Periodicals volume using IMb's, the Postal Service uses two external systems, Red Tag and DelTrak, to measure Periodicals service performance. The “start-the-clock” for both external systems is the mailer-reported induction time. For Red Tag and DelTrak, the “stop-the-clock” is the delivery date reported online by the external reporters. These reporters are mainly concentrated in postal administrative districts with high population density. Due to the limited number of reporters participating in these programs, data are only statistically valid for the desired precision at a postal administrative area level. 6.3 Reporting for Periodicals 6.3.1 Quarterly Reporting In FY2009, the Postal Service will use Red Tag and DelTrak data for reporting at the area level on a quarterly basis. The data from both systems will be provided to an external measurement contractor for application of business rules and combining of the data for overall performance reporting. The Postal Service reports service performance at a postal administrative area level in the interim until the volume of Periodicals with IMb's and electronic mailing documentation is sufficiently robust to provide statistically significant results at a lower level of aggregation. As additional performance data become available, the granularity will increase and may allow for reporting at the district level. The quarterly report format for Periodicals is as follows: Table 15.—Quarterly Performance for Periodicals; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Periodicals Area Percent on-time Northeast Area xx.x New York Metro Area xx.x Eastern Area xx.x Capital Metro Area xx.x Southeast Area xx.x Great Lakes Area xx.x Western Area xx.x Southwest Area xx.x Pacific Area xx.x National xx.x The service variance for Periodicals is reported separately, reflecting the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The quarterly service variance report format for Periodicals is as follows: Table 15.—Quarterly Performance for Periodicals Service Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format With Service Variance for Periodicals Area Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-days (percent) Within +3-days (percent) Northeast Area xx.x xx.x xx.x New York Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Eastern Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Southeast Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Great Lakes Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Western Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Southwest Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Pacific Area xx.x xx.x xx.x National xx.x xx.x xx.x 6.3.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service reports national measures per fiscal year for the percentage of Periodicals mail delivered on time. Annual performance consists of a weighted average for each Periodicals segment that allots weight based on the volume of mail in each Area. If the data are not representatively distributed, the weighting ensures that each Area counts for the appropriate portion of the national aggregate. The Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report format for Periodicals Mail is as follows: Table 16.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Periodicals Mail class Target (Percent) Percent on-time Periodicals Letters, Flats, and Parcels xx.x xx.x 7 Package Services 7.1 Background Market-dominant Package Services products include single-piece Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, and Media Mail. Presort Package Services flat-shaped mail is mainly composed of oversized catalogs, which are operationally handled the same as Standard Mail flats. Accordingly, the Postal Service measures Presort Package Services flats using the same approach as Standard Mail flats. Package Services parcel-shaped mail represented less than 0.3 percent of overall mail volume in FY2007. 18 Among Package Services parcels, 14.5 percent are Retail and 85.5 percent are Presort. 18 *See http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/RPW_FY_2007.pdf* . Table 17—Package Services Parcel-Shaped Mail Volume illustrates the make-up of parcels by entry method. The table also illustrates the percentage that market-dominant Package Services parcel-shaped mail represents within the overall domestic mailstream. Table 17.—Package Services Parcel-Shaped Mail Volume 1 Retail (Percent) Presort (Percent) Total (Percent) Package Services (Parcel-shaped) 14.5 85.5 100 Total Domestic Mailstream 0.1 0.3 0.4 1 For purposes of publication, the reference to Table 5 in the plan has been changed to Table 17. 7.2 Retail Package Services The Postal Service measures service performance for Package Services Retail mail via Delivery Confirmation scans. Retail Package Services parcels represent 14.5 percent of all Package Services parcels, but less than 0.1 percent of the total mailstream. Delivery Confirmation is included on 16 percent of such parcels, which represents a significant volume. 7.2.1 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Retail Package Services mail occurs at the retail counter when the customer purchases Delivery Confirmation. When retail personnel apply the Delivery Confirmation PS Form 152 to parcels, they scan the Delivery Confirmation form barcode. The scans are captured via either a POS or IRT terminal at the retail counter or an Intelligent Mail handheld scanning device. Because the customer is present at the “start-the-clock” event and receives a time-stamped receipt with purchase, there are several validation points. 7.2.2 “Stop-the-Clock” Postal personnel scan the Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery or attempted delivery, either of which serves to “stop-the-clock”. 7.3 Presort Package Services The Postal Service performs service measurement on presorted mail that passes verification and uses Delivery Confirmation service or the IMb. Service performance preparation requirements include electronic submission of postage statements and mailing documentation (when required), unique Intelligent Mail® Package barcodes or IMb's, unique Intelligent Mail® Container barcodes, and appointment scheduling for drop shipments at DBMC, DADC and DSCF facilities. These requirements are separate from addressing, presortation, containerization, or other requirements generally governing price eligibility. 7.3.1 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” for Presort Package Services is the documented arrival time at the Postal Service acceptance facility. For drop shipments at DBMC, DADC and DSCF facilities, the “start-the-clock” event is based on the customer's documented appointment and the driver-reported arrival time to the Postal Service, which are used to determine when the mail is available for processing. For mail that is presented at the BMEU, the arrival of the mailing is used as the “start-the-clock” as long as the mailing meets applicable preparation and service measurement requirements. For mail that is presented at the Delivery Unit, delivery confirmation or Intelligent Mail Container barcode scan events are used to “start-the-clock”. As with other mailings that enter a postal facility loading dock area, the Postal Service scans containers that have an Intelligent Mail Container barcode or uses electronic documentation to validate mailer shipment content and acceptance time. 7.3.2 “Stop-the-Clock” For Package Services parcels, postal personnel scan Delivery Confirmation barcodes upon delivery or attempted delivery, either of which serves to “stop-the-clock” for service performance measurement. For flats, mail with IMb's is scanned by external reporters to record “stop-the-clock” delivery events and transmitted to the external reporting system. By comparing the date of the final postal mail processing scan with the delivery date for these pieces, the external service measurement contractor can calculate a factor for the service performance for Package Services flats. The delivery factor is combined with the mail processing data that may not receive an external reporter scan to determine the end-to-end service performance measurement for Package Services flats. 7.4 Reporting for Package Services 7.4.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service reports quarterly on the percentage of mail that is delivered on time. The quarterly report format for Package Services parcels is as follows: Table 18.—Quarterly Performance for Package Services; Sample Quarterly Report Format With Service Variance for Package Services Parcels District Percent on-time Capital Metro Area xx.x Baltimore District xx.x Capital District xx.x Greater South Carolina District xx.x Greensboro District xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x Richmond District xx.x The service variance for Package Services parcels is reported separately as the percentage of mail that is delivered within one-day, two-days, and three-days of the applicable standard. The quarterly report format with the service variance for Package Services is as follows: Table 19.—Quarterly Performance for Package Services Service Variance; Sample Quarterly Report Format With Service Variance for Package Services Parcels Within +1-day (percent) Within +2-days (percent) Within +3-days (percent) Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x xx.x Baltimore District xx.x xx.x xx.x Capital District xx.x xx.x xx.x Greater South Carolina District xx.x xx.x xx.x Greensboro District xx.x xx.x xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x xx.x xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x xx.x xx.x Richmond District xx.x xx.x xx.x 7.4.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service reports national measures per fiscal year for the percentage of Package Services mail delivered on time. The Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report format for Package Services parcels is as follows: Table 20.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Package Services Mail class Target (percent) Percent on-time Package Services Parcels xx.x xx.x 8 Special Services 8.1 Background There are two categories of special services: Ancillary and stand-alone. Ancillary special services are purchased in addition to the postage applicable to First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package Services. These optional special services are varied in nature and include Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Electronic Return Receipt, Registered Mail, Collect on Delivery, and Address Correction Service, among others. In contrast to ancillary special services, stand-alone special services are not contingent on sending or receiving a particular mail piece and include services such as P.O. Box Service, CONFIRM, and Address List Services, among others. 8.2 Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, Electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery A principal feature of these special services is the electronic provision of information by the Postal Service to the sender regarding the delivery status of a particular mail piece. That information may consist of confirmation that delivery was attempted, completed, or that a copy of the recipient's signature was captured. For a number of these services, delivery-related information is generated by postal scanning of mail pieces at delivery units or during delivery. Before the completion of daily work shifts, postal personnel dock their portable handheld scanners, so that delivery information pertinent to each scanned mail piece can be transmitted to appropriate postal data systems. Handheld scanners allow for signatures to be captured at delivery and transmitted with the delivery information. Delivery information captured is then made available to the purchaser of the special service. The service measurement for Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery uses data generated from delivery event barcode scans to measure the time between when delivery information is collected and when that information is made available to the customer. When the delivery scan event is captured by the handheld scanner, a time-stamp is associated with the scan, which is the “start-the-clock”. When the scanning device is docked, the delivery scan event information is transmitted through postal data systems to the customer-accessible Track & Confirm page at *http://www.usps.com* , the Postal Service public Web site. The posting time to the customer-accessible Web site is the “stop-the-clock”. 8.3 CONFIRM and Address Correction The electronic provision of information by the Postal Service to the mail piece sender is a key component for CONFIRM and automated Address Correction services as well. CONFIRM scanning of mail and identification of automated Address Correction of applicable mail pieces are each performed passively by automated mail processing equipment, which then transmits information to postal data systems. Information from these systems is made available to the purchaser of the special service. The service measurement for both CONFIRM and automated Address Correction uses the IMb on individual mail pieces. For CONFIRM, when mail processing equipment scans a mail piece, the scan information is transmitted to the CONFIRM system in near-real time and made available to CONFIRM subscribers. The “start-the-clock” is the time stamp associated with the scan. The “stop-the-clock” is the date and time when data are made available to subscribers. For automated Address Correction customers, scans are transmitted to the Address Correction System
(ACS)at preset intervals during the day and the corrected address information is forwarded to customers who subscribe to the service. The “start-the-clock” is the date and time when data is transmitted to ACS. The “stop-the-clock” is the date and time when data are forwarded to participants. 8.4 Post Office Box Service Post Office Box service is internally measured using scanning technology to compare the availability of mail delivered to a P.O. Box section by the posted “uptime”. The “uptime” is the posted time of day when customers can expect to collect the mail from their P.O. Box. A barcode in the P.O. Box section is scanned when the distribution of mail is complete. 8.5 Insurance Claims Processing The Postal Service's Customer Inquiry Claims Response System (CICRS) is an application used to process indemnity claims when domestic insured articles are lost or damaged in the mail. For domestic claims, after the customer has submitted the appropriate claim form, Postal Service employees verify completion of the form and submit it for processing to the CICRS system. The claim is keyed into the system and the data are uploaded for processing. For claims that are not complete and that require additional information from the customer, correspondence is mailed to the customer requesting the missing information, with instructions regarding where to send the additional information. Once all information is received by CICRS, the system proceeds to the claims processing resolution phase. The date that all information is available for claims processing resolution is the “start-the-clock”. Depending on the value of the item lost or damaged, the claim may be automatically paid or denied by the system or sent for review by a postal insurance claims adjudicator or the Postal Service Consumer Advocate. The adjudicator or Consumer Advocate decides if the claim should be paid, denied, or closed. The date on which the system, adjudicator, Consumer Advocate pays, denies, or closes the claim and transmits a response to the customer is the “stop-the-clock”. 8.6 Postal Money Order Inquiry Processing The Money Order Inquiry System
(MOIS)is an application used to process customer inquiries regarding Postal Money Orders they have purchased. After the customer has completed PS Form 6401 and paid for the inquiry service, Postal Service employees submit the form to a centralized facility for processing. The inquiry is scanned into the system and the data are uploaded for processing. MOIS verifies whether the money order in question has been cashed by running the money order number against a database of cashed money orders. The system generates correspondence to the inquiring customer regarding the status of the money order in question. The purchase of the inquiry service is the “start-the-clock” event. Transmission of a response to the customer is the “stop-the-clock” event. 8.7 Address List Services Address List Services are available to customers seeking correction of the addresses or ZIP Codes on their mailing lists, or the sequencing of their address cards. The Postal Service will use a system to record “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” times for these services. The “start-the-clock” event is the receipt of the address list or address cards from the mailer at the delivery unit or the postal district Address Management Systems office. The “stop-the-clock” event is the transmission of the corrected address information from the delivery unit or district AMS office to the requestor. 8.8 Reporting 8.8.1 Quarterly Reporting The Postal Service reports Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, Registered Mail, electronic Return Receipt, and Collect on Delivery as an aggregate score on a quarterly basis by district. The service performance for these special services is aggregated, as they all use the same system to measure the time elapsed from when the delivery information is captured by the Postal Service until it is available to the customer. Post Office Box service is also reported quarterly by district. Since CONFIRM, automated Address Correction, Insurance Claims Processing, Money Order Inquiry Processing, and Address List Services each use a national or centralized system for providing the majority if not all of each respective service, performance will be reported at a national level. The Postal Service reports quarterly on the percentage of those services that meet the service standard. The quarterly report format for Special Services is as follows: Table 21.—Quarterly Performance for Special Services; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Special Services Reported at the District Level; Sample Quarterly Report Format for Special Services Reported at the District Level District Delivery information special services combined score Percent on-time Post office box service Percent on-time Capital Metro Area xx.x xx.x Baltimore District xx.x xx.x Capital District xx.x xx.x Greater South Carolina District xx.x xx.x Greensboro District xx.x xx.x Mid-Carolinas District xx.x xx.x No. Virginia District xx.x xx.x Richmond District xx.x xx.x The quarterly report format for CONFIRM, automated Address Correction, Insurance Claims Processing, Address List Services, and Postal Money Order Inquiry Processing is as follows: Table 22.—Sample Quarterly Report Format for Special Services Reported at the National Level CONFIRM Percent on-time Address Correction Percent on-time Insurance Claims Processing Percent on-time Address List Services Percent on-time Money Order Inquiry Percent on-time National xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x xx.x 8.8.2 Annual Reporting The Postal Service has developed a Special Services Index to reflect an annual combined service measurement score per fiscal year for Special Services. This index weights and aggregates various special services so that all components are reflected appropriately and still maintain distinctness. The Annual Compliance Report format for Special Services is as follows: Table 23.—Annual Compliance Report; Sample Annual Report Format for Special Services Reported at the National Level Target Index Special Services xxxx xxxx 9 Appendix 9.1 Service Measurement Business Rules The business rules for service performance measurement are intended to maintain a clearly defined structure for and ensure the reliability of the measurement system. The business rules are grouped into the four subject areas below: “Start-the-clock”, “Stop-the-clock”, Special Services, and Inclusions. 1 “Start-the-Clock” Generally, if the mail arrival time is before the CET, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry. If the day of entry is a Sunday or holiday, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the next applicable acceptance day. If the mail arrival time is after the CET, then the mail will have a “start-the-clock” Day-0 of the next acceptance day for that facility. CET rules apply to mail entered at retail and through bulk induction. As mail entry processes and systems change over time, so too will the methods by which the Postal Service will gather “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” information. The following rules apply to current entry scenarios. 1.1 Mail Entered at the Business Mail Entry Unit
(BMEU)1.1.1 Customer/Supplier Agreement Bulk mailers subject to a Customer/Supplier Agreement may have different acceptance windows than the established BMEU hours of operation. Each Customer/Supplier Agreement will specify the applicable “start-the-clock” Day-0 window mutually established by the mailer and the Postal Service. Mailers who require BMEU verification must work within the posted BMEU hours of operation unless alternate arrangements specified through Customer/Supplier Agreements. 1.1.2 Critical Entry Time For mailers who deposit mail at a BMEU, the CET for specific classes of mail is determined locally by the facility manager at the Postal Service mail facility at which bulk entry will occur. 1.1.3 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” event for mail deposited at a BMEU is either the time the mailer arrives, as documented in PostalOne!® or when mailing verification is complete, depending on the circumstances surrounding the mail entry. Mailer arrival time is recorded by postal personnel in PostalOne! upon mailer arrival at the BMEU. Mailing verification completion also is documented in the PostalOne! system. For mailers with a Customer/Supplier Agreement in place, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry if the mailer arrival time is prior to the latest acceptance time specified by the Customer/Supplier Agreement. The “start-the-clock” Day-0 for mailers that arrive after the latest acceptance time specified by their Customer/Supplier Agreement is the day of entry if verification is completed before the facility CET; otherwise, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the following applicable acceptance day. For mailers without a Customer/Supplier Agreement in place, if the mailer arrival time is prior to the facility CET for the class of mail, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry; otherwise, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the following acceptance day. If the mailing fails acceptance verification, the mailer will be notified and presented with the option of fixing the mailing so that it conforms to the preparation requirements associated with acceptance at the requested price categories or paying additional postage based upon the degree of preparation associated with the mail as presented. A new “start-the-clock” event may occur when mail that initially fails verification is finally released for processing. A decision tree illustrating the “start-the-clock” Day-0 for mail deposited at a BMEU is depicted below [and identified as] Appendix Figure 1—“Start-the-Clock” Decision Tree for mail deposited at the BMEU[.] [Appendix Figure 1 omitted for publication purposes, but can be viewed on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/daily-listing* .] 1.2 “Start-the-Clock” Mail Deposited at a BMEU: Mailer has Customer/Supplier Agreement; latest time of acceptance in agreement is 3 p.m.; verification start time is 4:30 p.m.; verification complete time is 5:15 p.m.; hours of Operation are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and “start-the-clock” Day-0 is the next day of acceptance. [Decision Tree omitted for publication purposes, but can be viewed on Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/daily-listing* .] 1.3 Plant Load Using Postal Transportation 1.3.1 Critical Entry Time The CET is determined locally by postal facility managers and is documented in a Customer/Supplier Agreement. 1.3.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” event for a plant load mailing using postal transportation is based on the mail ready time as indicated by mailers and verified by postal personnel in PostalOne!®. Mailers document that mail was ready within the acceptance window specified in the Customer/Supplier Agreement and this is verified by postal personnel. If the “start-the-clock” event occurs before the latest acceptance time specified by the Customer/Supplier Agreement, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry. If this activity occurs after the latest acceptance time, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the following acceptance day. If a mailer with multiple dispatch events cannot identify what is physically in each container or tray, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 for all mail entered within the mailing period defined in the mailer's electronic documentation will be based on the “start-the-clock” event of the last truck dispatched. 1.4 Plant Load Using Mailer Transportation 1.4.1 Critical Entry Time For plant load using mailer transportation, the CET for each class is determined locally by postal facility managers. 1.4.2 “Start-the-Clock” For plant load using mailer transportation, the “start-the-clock” event will be defined in the mailer's Customer/Supplier Agreement. If the “start-the-clock” event occurs before the latest acceptance time specified by the Customer/Supplier Agreement, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry. If this event occurs after the latest acceptance time, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the following acceptance day. 1.5 Destinating Drop Shipment at Plants—Standard Letters and Flats 1.5.1 Critical Entry Time The CET for destination-entered Standard Mail drop shipments is a nationally standardized entry time documented in the Postal Service's Mail Processing Operating Plan System (MPOPS) and made visible to the mailers. 1.5.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” event is documented in FAST at the destination entry facility. For mailings that arrive at the scheduled appointment time, the “start-the-clock” event is the driver-reported arrival time. For mailings that arrive prior to the scheduled appointment, the “start-the-clock” event is either the appointment time or unload start time, whichever is earlier. For mailings that arrive after the mailer-scheduled appointment time, the “start-the-clock” event is the unload start time. Mailings will be subject to the national CET. For mailings that have a “start-the-clock” event prior to the CET, then Day-0 is day of entry. For mailings that have a “start-the-clock” event after the CET, then Day-0 is the next applicable acceptance day. When a mailer schedules multi-stop appointments to drop mail at two or more facilities using the same surface transportation vehicle and mail arrives late at a downstream facility because of a delay caused solely by the Postal Service, the following litmus test will be used to determine “start-the-clock” Day-0. If the multi-stop appointment schedule reflects consideration of inter-facility drive-times and designated unload times for the category of mail and is on time at the first appointment, the mailer will receive credit for on-time arrival at downstream facilities and the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry. If the mailer fails to adhere to these considerations in making multi-stop appointments, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the next processing day. The Postal Service encourages mailers to account for foreseeable traffic and construction delays in scheduling all drop ship appointments. Mailers who schedule the minimum time for transportation and designated unload times run a higher risk of missing appointments versus mailers who allow for traffic and construction delays. Where available, a postal acceptance facility will use handheld scanning devices or computer terminals located on the dock to record the mailing's driver-reported arrival time. The FAST system uses these arrival times. Otherwise, manual-entered appointment data will be used to document the mailing's arrival time. A decision tree illustrating the “start-the-clock” Day-0 for destinating drop shipment at plants is depicted below [.] [and identified as Appendix Figure 2—“Start-the-clock” Decision Tree for Destinating Drop Shipment at Plants.] [Appendix Figure 2 omitted for publication purposes, but can be viewed on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/daily-listing* .] 1.6 “Start-the-Clock” Drop Shipment at an SCF; mail received after appointment time: FAST appointment at 12 p.m.; arrival 1 p.m.; CET is 4 p.m.; unload start time is 1:30 p.m.; and “start-the-clock” Day-0 is the day of entry. [Decision Tree omitted for publication, but can be viewed on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/daily-listing* .] 1.7 Destinating Drop Shipment—Periodicals 1.7.1 Critical Entry Time The CET for destination-entered Periodicals drop shipments is determined locally by facility managers. 1.7.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” rules for destination-entered Periodicals drop shipments are the same as the rules for destinating drop shipment at plants for Standard letters and flats, with one exception. For destination-entered Periodicals, if the day of entry is a Sunday or holiday, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of entry. 1.8 Drop Shipment at the Delivery Unit 1.8.1 Critical Entry Time The CET for drop shipment at a Delivery Unit is determined locally by postal facility managers, documented in the Postal Service's Facilities Database (FDB), and will be made visible to the mailers. A Customer/Supplier Agreement may be established between a bulk mailer and the Postal Service. In the case where a Customer/Supplier Agreement exists, it is the responsibility of the mailer to enter mail in compliance with the agreement. 1.8.2 “Start-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” event at the delivery unit will be based on the container acceptance scans generated by postal personnel via the Intelligent Mail Data Acquisition System (IMDAS) scanner. When the “start-the-clock” event occurs at or before the CET, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the day of acceptance. If the “start-the-clock” event occurs after the CET, the “start-the-clock” Day-0 will be the next applicable acceptance day. 2 “Stop-the-Clock” The “stop-the-clock” event for service measurement will be a scan by an external reporter or postal personnel. 2.1 Final Scan by Postal Personnel If a mail piece meeting the requirements for service performance measurement also is subject to Delivery Confirmation service, postal personnel will scan the Delivery Confirmation barcode on the piece at delivery. The time of this scan will be the “stop-the-clock” for the piece. In cases where multiple acceptable “stop-the-clock” events take place, the first event assigned will “stop-the-clock”. Any of the following Delivery Confirmation scans may be a “stop-the-clock” event: Delivery; attempted delivery; forwarded; undeliverable-as-addressed; refused; return to sender; dead mail; and arrival at pickup point. 2.2 External Reporter “Stop-the-Clock” Scan When an external reporter scans a mail piece, the time of the scan will be the “stop-the-clock” for the external measurement contractor. Reporters are required to scan mail on the day of receipt. Quality control checks will verify process compliance. 2.3 Delivery Factor The external measurement contractor will calculate delivery factors and apply those factors to calculate service measurement for categories of mail. The external measurement contractor will determine the delivery factor for each district on a quarterly basis. Because the following mail segments are processed differently by postal operations, the delivery factor will be distinct for the following mail segments: First-Class Mail and Standard Mail Presort Letters with DPS secondary sort scans; Standard Mail Non-Carrier Route Flats (scanned on postal mail processing equipment); Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats (including saturation flats, scanned at delivery unit); Standard Mail Letters without DPS scan; Standard Mail Saturation Flats (visually identified by external reporters); and manual mail (mail that falls out of automation or does not destinate in an automated zone). If the delivery factor is not sufficiently precise for the mail piece characteristics over the period of a fiscal quarter, an annual factor will be used. 3 Special Services 3.1 Delivery Information Services 3.1.1 Delivery information from the following Special Services riding on market-dominant products will be included in service measurement: Delivery Confirmation, Signature Confirmation, Certified Mail, electronic Return Receipt, Collect On Delivery, and Registered Mail. 3.1.2 “Start-the-Clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” is the time-stamp associated to the delivery event scan. The “stop-the-clock” is the posting of the delivery information for customers via the customer-accessible Web site. Delivery information services included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.2 CONFIRM and Automated Address Correction Service 3.2.1 “Start-the-clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” for CONFIRM The time stamp associated with the mail processing equipment scan is the “start-the-clock”. The posting time of the scan information in CONFIRM is the “stop-the-clock”. CONFIRM scan information included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.2.2 “Start-the-Clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” for Automated Address Correction The date and time scans are transmitted to the ACS system is the “start-the-clock”. The date and time information is forwarded to subscribers is the “stop-the-clock”. ACS scan information included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.2.3 Customers that choose to receive data outside of the service standard will not be included in service measurement. 3.3 Post Office Box Service 3.3.1 Post Office Box service is internally measured using scanning technology to compare the actual availability of the day's mail delivered to a P.O. Box section to the posted “uptime”. If there is no daily scan from an office, the P.O. Box uptime for that office on that day will be considered late for service measurement. 3.3.2 Contract postal units will not be included in service measurement. 3.3.3 Sundays, postal holidays and other non-delivery days will not be counted in measuring service standard compliance. 3.4 Insurance Claims Processing 3.4.1 “Start-the-Clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” The date that all information is available for claims processing resolution is the “start-the-clock”. The date on which either the system or the adjudicator pays, denies, or closes the claim and sends a response for the customer is the “stop-the-clock”. Insurance claims included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.4.2 Designated postal holidays will not be counted in measuring service standard compliance. 3.5 Postal Money Order Inquiry Processing 3.5.1 “Start-the-Clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” The purchase of the inquiry service is the “start-the-clock” event. The response to the customer in the Money Order Inquiry System
(MOIS)is the “stop-the-clock” event. Money Order Inquiries included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.5.2 Money Order Inquiries with a start-the-clock date prior to the Money Order issue date will not be included in service measurement. 3.5.3 Saturdays, Sundays, designated postal holidays, and other non-delivery days will not be counted in measuring service standard compliance. 3.5.4 Only fee-based Money Order Inquiries will be included in service measurement. 3.6 Address List Service 3.6.1 “Start-the-Clock” and “Stop-the-Clock” The “start-the-clock” event is the receipt of the address list or address cards from the mailer at the delivery unit or the postal district Address Management Systems office. The “stop-the-clock” event is the transmission of the corrected address information from the district AMS office to the requestor. Address List Service requests included in service measurement must have both a recorded “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock”. 3.6.2 Saturdays, Sundays, designated postal holidays, and other non-delivery days will not be counted in measuring service standard compliance. 3.6.3 Requests received between November 16 and January 1 will not be included in service measurement. 19 19 The exclusion of the Nov 16-Jan 1 time frame for Address List Services performance measurement conforms to the service standard for this product published at 39 CFR 122.2(b). *See* 72 **Federal Register** 72231 (December 19, 2007). As explained at 72 FR 58963 (October 17, 2007), the surge of holiday mail volume places an extraordinary demand on Postal Service personnel ordinarily responsible for fulfilling Address List Services requests, making it very difficult for them to fulfill such requests during this time frame. 4 Inclusions For purposes of measuring end-to-end market-dominant bulk mail service quality, only mail that is verified by the Postal Service as satisfying mail preparation requirements associated with applicable price categories, and complies with requirements of the Full Service Intelligent Mail® option, will be included in service measurement. Manual Mailing Evaluation Readability Lookup Instrument (MERLIN) and automated verification results are methods used to verify the mail. 4.1 Mailing Level Validation When a bulk mailing does not pass a particular mail preparation criterion in the verification process, no pieces from that mailing will be included in service measurement (unless “Next Day” Day-0 can be applied). When a mailing fails verification, the mailing will not be included in service measurement until the mailer fixes the problem or pays additional postage. After the mailer fixes the problem, the mailing will be included in service measurement, although a new “start-the-clock” Day-0 may apply. If additional postage is needed, the mailer may have to submit additional information in order for the mailing to be included in service measurement. 4.2 Appointment Level Validation Containers associated with an appointment with one of the irregularities identified below will not be included in service measurement. 1. Incorrect Entry Facility; and 2. Damaged Mail. 4.3 Container Level Validation All pieces inducted at the correct destination facility based on container preparation and that can be associated with an appointment will not be included in service measurement per the scenarios below. 4.3.1 *Scenario 1* . Container inducted at the correct destination facility based on container preparation, but not included on any appointment: Pieces associated with that container will not be included in service measurement. 4.3.2 *Scenario 2* . Container inducted at wrong destination facility based on container preparation, but not included on any appointment: Pieces associated with that container will not be included in service measurement. 4.4 Piece Level Validation Mail pieces identified with mail preparation quality issues by the automated verification system will not be included in service measurement. Piece level validations include: Barcode uniqueness; barcode quality; un-manifested mail piece; address validity; address hygiene (per Postal Service Publication 28); and presort accuracy. 4.5 Parcel Validation Parcels destined for unique or 100 percent business 5-digit ZIP Codes will not be included in service measurement. 4.6 Mailer Documentation Validation Automated validations will be conducted to ensure the integrity of the electronic documentation submitted by mailers and that it accurately reflects the mail preparation requirements, price eligibility and other physical characteristics of the mail to which it pertains. 4.7 ZIP Codes All active 3-digit ZIP Codes are included in Service Measurement, with the following exceptions: 4.7.1 090-098, 340, and 962-966 are all APO/FPO (military) ZIP Codes and fall outside of the capability of this measurement system. The mail is processed in a manner that will not produce a final automation scan that can serve as a reasonable proxy for delivery. 4.7.2 Mail destinating to 202-205, which are the Federal Agency ZIP Code ranges in Washington, DC. All of this mail continues to be processed through a complex process of treatment and surveillance prior to delivery. There is no reliable means to measure actual service performance. 4.7.3 005, 192, 375, 399, 459, 649, 733, 842 and 938 are unique 3-digit ZIP Codes for IRS Processing Centers. Due to the unique processing and flow of this mail, there is no means to provide service measurement. 4.7.4 For purposes of service measurement, the origin for mail from Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the interstate/interterritorial gateway processing facility for each state or territory is located. The destination for mail to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the interstate/interterritorial gateway mail processing facility for each state or territory is located. 4.7.5 509, 555, 821, 872, 885, 889, 901, and 942 are unique 3-digit ZIP Codes for either large businesses or government agencies. Due to the unique processing and flow of this mail, there is no means to provide service measurement. 569 is a unique 3-digit ZIP Code that is used only for a competitive product. 9.2 Implementation Status (June 2008) The Postal Service will use a phased rollout of the service performance measurement system, which will correspond with Full Service Intelligent Mail® Option adoption. A significant adoption of IMb's by Full Service mailers is expected after May 2009, when IMb-based price incentives are expected to take effect, with progressively higher levels of adoption thereafter. As more and varied mailers adopt Full Service IMb's, the data available for service performance measurement will become even more robust and representative of the full population. 20 20 Excluding Periodicals Mail. Some components of the measurement system are already in place. The Postal Service will continue to use EXFC to measure single-piece First-Class Mail letters and flats, as well as IMMS to measure single-piece First-Class Mail International letters. EXFC and IMMS are specifically designed to be representative of those mailstreams and already provide an external, statistically valid performance measurement. Measurement is also available for Package Services parcels entered at retail. 21 The existing Delivery Confirmation performance reports for mail originating at postal retail facilities can be used in the short-term to measure the service performance of all Package Services. 21 Under Order No. 43, the PRC has classified inbound single-piece surface parcels tendered at Universal Postal Union inward land rates as a market-dominant product. This mail includes parcels, which enter the United States via surface transportation at the New Jersey International Bulk Mail Center, as well as surface airlift parcels, which enter at the five International Service Centers in Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York JFK, and San Francisco. Once parcels clear U.S. Customs, they are transferred from the acceptance facility to a Bulk Mail Center (BMC). Once entered into the BMC network, inbound surface parcels undergo the same processing as domestic single-piece Package Services parcels. Because the volume of the inbound surface parcels is small in proportion to other market-dominant categories, creating a separate measurement system for these parcels is not cost-justified. Given that inbound surface parcels are handled through the domestic BMC network, the Postal Service will use the service performance measurement statistics for corresponding domestic parcels as a reasonable proxy for International Mail inbound surface parcels (at UPU rates). Although use of the IMb will not be required on all automation mail until May 2010, several mailers have already adopted the IMb and submit electronic documentation. Pilot programs are currently underway for measurement of Presort First-Class Mail and Standard Mail. Mailer adoption rates are expected to continue growing since the lowest automation price, Full-Service IMb, is expected to be implemented in May 2009. Toward the end of FY2008, selected external reporters will be trained to use a new scanning device for in-home delivery reporting of all mail received that contains an IMb. In FY2009, IMb and electronic mailing information adoption will occur in sufficient quantity that measurement based on scans generated by external reporters will provide statistically valid measurements for service performance of Presort First-Class Mail letters and Standard Mail. For Periodicals mailers, adoption of IMb's and electronic mailing information is projected to be slower. Measurements from DelTrak and Red Tag, which are two external measurement systems, will be used during FY2009 as the Postal Service transitions to a statistically viable long-term solution using the same methodology explained above. The following table provides an illustration of the measurement timeline that the Postal Service will implement while long-term measures are being developed and adopted. Table 23.—Measurement Implementation Timeline FY2009 FY2010 First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters and Flats EXFC EXFC. First-Class Mail Presort Flats and Single-Piece International Mail Flats EXFC as Proxy EXFC as Proxy. Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Letters IMMS IMMS. First-Class Mail Presort Letters Pilot and Reporter + IMb/Electronic Mailing Information Reporter + IMb/ Electronic Mailing Information. First-Class Mail Parcels and International Mail Parcels 1 Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation. Standard Mail Letters and Flats Pilot and Reporter + IMb/Electronic Mailing Information Reporter + IMb/ Electronic Mailing Information. Standard Mail Parcels 2 Delivery Confirmation Delivery Confirmation. Periodicals Letters and Flats Red Tag/DelTrak Reporter + IMb/ Electronic Mailing Information. 3 Package Services Parcels (includes Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, Media Mail and Parcel Post) Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation Retail and Presort Delivery Confirmation. Special Services Internal Measurement Internal Measurement. 1 First-Class Mail parcels will be rolled into the First-Class Mail measurement based on percent of mail. 2 Standard Mail parcels will be rolled into the Standard Mail measurement based on percent of mail. 3 The Postal Service may elect to have its external provider use data from DelTrak or Red Tag even in future years, if it proves to increase the overall robustness of the data and the statistical validity. 9.3 Modern Service Standards for Market Dominant Products The following tables are provided as a reference for the modern service standards. Table 24.—Domestic Origin Entry Mail Mail class End-to-end flow range
(days)1 First-Class Mail 1-3 Periodicals 1-9 Standard Mail 3-10 Package Services 2-8 1 *See* 72 FR 72216 (December 19, 2007) for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Table 25.—Domestic Destination Entry Mail 1 Mail Class End-to-end flow range
(days)1 DDU
(days)SCF
(days)ADC
(days)BMC
(days)Periodicals 1 1 1-2 1-2 2 Standard Mail 2 3 5 Package Services 1 2 3 1 *See* 72 FR 72216 (December 19, 2007) for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 Only applies to Periodicals receiving the DBMC Container rate. Table 26.—Special Services Delivery Information Services: Delivery Confirmation Availability of delivery information within 24 hours. Signature Confirmation Certified Mail Registered Mail 1 Collect on Delivery Electronic Return Request CONFIRM Availability of scan information within 24 hours. Address Correction Service (automated Availability of address information within 24 hours. P.O. Box Service Mail delivered by posted P.O. Box uptime. Insurance Claims Processing Claims processing within 30 calendar days. Money Order Inquiry Customer response within 15 business days. Address List Services Information within 15 business days. 1 Registered Mail includes domestic mail and inbound international mail. III. Trademarks The following are among the trademarks owned by the United States Postal Service: Certified Mail TM , Click-N-Ship®, CONFIRM®, Delivery Confirmation TM , ‘1DMM®, Express Mail®, FAST *forward* ®, First-Class Mail®, Intelligent Mail®, MERLIN TM , P.O. Box TM , Parcel Post®, Parcel Select®, PC Postage®, PLANET®, PLANET Code®, Post Office TM , *PostalOne!* ®, Postal Service TM , Priority Mail®, Registered Mail TM , Signature Confirmation TM , Standard Mail®, United States Postal Service®, U.S. Mail TM , U.S. Postal Service®, USPS®, USPS *http://www.usps.com®* , ZIP+4®, and ZIP Code TM . This is not a comprehensive list of all Postal Service trademarks. IV. Ordering Paragraphs It is Ordered: 1. Interested persons may submit written comments on any or all aspects of the Postal Service’s proposed service performance measurement systems and reporting systems by no later than July 9, 2008. 2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14396 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57987; File No. S7-966] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amendment to the Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the American Stock Exchange, LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, LLC, the NYSE Arca, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc June 18, 2008. Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 approving and declaring effective an amendment to the plan for allocating regulatory responsibility filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Act, 2 by the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), the International Securities Exchange, (“ISE”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”), the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (collectively, “SRO participants”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 2 17 CFR 240.17d-2. I. Introduction Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, 3 among other things, requires every self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) registered as either a national securities exchange or national securities association to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 4 or Section 19(g)(2) 5 of the Act. Without this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (“common members”). Such regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 4 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 6 was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication. 7 With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions. 6 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 7 *See* Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). *To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:* Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 8 Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules. 9 When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and trading activities and practices. 8 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20, 1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976). To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 10 Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to another SRO. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28, 1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976). II. The Plan On September 8, 1983, the Commission approved the SRO participants' plan for allocating regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2. 11 On May 23, 2000, the Commission approved an amendment to the plan that added the ISE as a participant. 12 On November 8, 2002, the Commission approved another amendment that replaced the original plan in its entirety and, among other things, allocated regulatory responsibilities among all the participants in a more equitable manner. 13 On February 5, 2004, the parties submitted an amendment to the plan, primarily to include the BSE, which was establishing a new options trading facility to be known as the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”), as an SRO participant. 14 On December 5, 2007, the parties submitted an amendment to the plan to, among other things, provide that the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) (n/k/a the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. or “FINRA”) and NYSE are Designated Options Examining Authorities under the plan. 15 On December 27, 2007, the parties submitted an amendment to the plan, primarily to add NASDAQ as an SRO participant and to reflect the name change of NASD to FINRA. 16 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20158 (September 8, 1983), 48 FR 41256 (September 14, 1983). 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42816 (May 23, 2000), 65 FR 34759 (May 31, 2000). 13 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46800 (November 8, 2002), 67 FR 69774 (November 19, 2002). 14 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49197 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7046 (February 12, 2004). 15 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55532 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15729 (April 2, 2007). 16 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57481 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 15571 (March 14, 2008). The plan reduces regulatory duplication for a large number of firms currently members of two or more of the SRO participants by allocating regulatory responsibility for certain options-related sales practice matters to one of the SRO participants. Generally, under the current plan, the SRO participant responsible for conducting options-related sales practice examinations of a firm, and investigating options-related customer complaints and terminations for cause of associated persons of that firm, is known as the firm's “Designated Options Examining Authority” (“DOEA”). Pursuant to the current plan, any other SRO of which the firm is a member is relieved of these responsibilities during the period in which the firm is assigned to another SRO acting as that firm's DOEA. III. Proposed Amendment to the Plan On June 5, 2008, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the plan. The primary purpose of the amendment is to remove the NYSE as a Designated Options Examining Authority (“DOEA”), leaving FINRA as the sole DOEA for all common members that are members of FINRA. The amended plan replaces the previous agreement in its entirety. The text of the proposed amended 17d-2 plan is as follows (additions are *italicized* ; deletions are [bracketed]): 17 17 The parties have not proposed any changes to Exhibit A of the plan. The full text of Exhibit A may be found in Release No. 34-57481. *See supra* note 16 (citing to Release No. 34-57481). Agreement by and among the American Stock Exchange, LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, LLC, the NYSE Arca Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This agreement (“Agreement”), by and among the American Stock Exchange, LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, LLC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“NASDAQ”), the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”), the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., hereinafter collectively referred to as the Participants, is made this *5th* [27th] day of *June* [December], 200 *8* [7], pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which allows for plans among self-regulatory organizations to allocate regulatory responsibility. This Agreement shall be administered by a committee known as the Options Self-Regulatory Council (the “Council”). This Agreement amends and restates the agreement entered into among the Participants on December *27* [1], 200 *7* [6], entitled “Agreement by and among the American Stock Exchange, LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, LLC, *Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,* [National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.,] the New York Stock Exchange, LLC, the NYSE Arca Inc., *the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,* and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.” *Whereas* , the Participants are desirous of allocating regulatory responsibilities with respect to broker-dealers, and persons associated therewith, that are members †1 of more than one Participant (the “Common Members”) and conduct a public business for compliance with Common Rules (as hereinafter defined) relating to the conduct by broker-dealers of accounts for listed options, index warrants, currency index warrants and currency warrants (collectively, “Covered Securities”); and †1 In the case of the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., and NASDAQ members are those persons who are options participants (as defined in the BOX and NASDAQ Options Market Rules). *Whereas* , the Participants are desirous of executing a plan for this purpose pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 and filing such plan with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) for its approval; *Now, therefore* , in consideration of the mutual covenants contained hereafter, the Participants agree as follows: I. As used herein the term Designated Options Examining Authority (“DOEA”) shall mean *: (1)* FINRA [and NYSE] insofar as *it* [each] shall perform Regulatory Responsibility (as hereinafter defined) for its broker-dealer members that also are members of another Participant[, and allocated to it in accordance with the terms hereof.] *or (2)* [T] *t* he Designated Examination Authority (“DEA”) pursuant to SEC Rule 17d-1 under the Securities Exchange Act (“Rule 17d-1”) for a broker-dealer that is a member of a more than one Participant (but not a member of [a DOEA) shall perform the Regulatory Responsibility under the Agreement as if such DEA were the DOEA] *FINRA* ). II. As used herein, the term “Regulatory Responsibility” shall mean the examination and enforcement responsibilities relating to compliance by [broker-dealers that are members of more than one Participant (the “] Common Members [”)] with the rules of the applicable Participant that are substantially similar to the rules of the other Participants (the “Common Rules”), insofar as they apply to the conduct of accounts for Covered Securities. A list of the current Common Rules of each Participant applicable to the conduct of accounts for Covered Securities is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Each year within 30 days of the anniversary date of the commencement of operation of this Agreement, each Participant shall submit in writing to [each DOEA] *FINRA* and *each* DEA performing as a DOEA for any members of such Participant any revisions to Exhibit A reflecting changes in the rules of the Participant [or DOEAs], and confirm that all other rules of the Participant listed in Exhibit A continue to meet the definition of Common Rules as defined in this Agreement. Within 30 days from the date that [each DOEA] *FINRA and each DEA performing as a DOEA* has received revisions and/or confirmation that no change has been made to Exhibit A from all Participants, [the DOEAs] *FINRA and each DEA performing as a DOEA* shall confirm in writing to each Participant whether the rules listed in any updated Exhibit A are Common Rules as defined in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, it is explicitly understood that the term “Regulatory Responsibility” does not include, and each of the Participants shall (unless allocated pursuant to Rule 17d-2 otherwise than under this Agreement) retain full responsibility for, each of the following:
(a)Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving its own marketplace, including without limitation its rules relating to the rights and obligations of specialists and other market makers;
(b)Registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons;
(c)Discharge of its duties and obligations as a DEA; and
(d)Evaluation of advertising, responsibility for which shall remain with the Participant to which a Common Member submits same for approval. III. Apparent violations of another Participant's rules discovered by a DOEA, but which rules are not within the scope of the discovering DOEA's Regulatory Responsibility, shall be referred to the relevant Participant for such action as the Participant to which such matter has been referred deems appropriate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall preclude a DOEA in its discretion from requesting that another Participant conduct an enforcement proceeding on a matter for which the requesting DOEA has Regulatory Responsibility. If such other Participants agree, the Regulatory Responsibility in such case shall be deemed transferred to the accepting Participant *and confirmed in writing by the Participants involved* . Each Participant agrees, upon request, to make available promptly all relevant files, records and/or witnesses necessary to assist another Participant in an investigation or enforcement proceeding. IV. The Council shall be composed of one representative designated by each of the Participants. Each Participant shall also designate one or more persons as its alternate representative(s). In the absence of the representative of a Participant, such alternate representative shall have the same powers, duties and responsibilities as the representative. Each Participant may, at any time, by notice to the then Chair of the Council, replace its representative and/or its alternate representative on such Council. A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum and, unless specifically otherwise required, the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council members present (in person, by telephone or by written consent) shall be necessary to constitute action by the Council. [From time to time, the Council shall elect one member from the DOEAs to] *The representative from FINRA shall* serve as Chair *of the Council* [and another from the Council to serve as Vice Chair (to substitute for the Chair in the event of his or her unavailability at a meeting of the Council)]. All notices and other communications for the Council shall be sent to it in care of the Chair or to each of the representatives. V. The Council shall determine the times and locations of Council meetings, provided that the Chair, acting alone, may also call a meeting of the Council in the event the Chair determines that there is good cause to do so. To the extent reasonably possible, notice of any meeting shall be given at least ten business days prior thereto. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, representatives shall always be given the option of participating in any meeting telephonically at their own expense rather than in person. VI. *FINRA shall have Regulatory Responsibility for all Common Members that are members of FINRA.* For the purpose of fulfilling the Participants' Regulatory Responsibilities *for Common Members that are not members of FINRA* , the *Participant that is the DEA shall serve as the DOEA.* [DOEAs shall allocate Common Members that conduct a public business in Covered Securities among DOEAs from time to time in such manner as the DOEAs deem appropriate, provided that any such allocation shall be based on the following principles except to the extent affected DOEAs consent:
(a)The DOEAs may not allocate a member to a DOEA unless the member is a member of that DOEA, nor shall any member be allocated to a Participant that is not a DOEA or DEA acting as a DOEA.
(b)To the extent practical and desired by the DOEAs, Common Members that conduct a public business in Covered Securities shall be allocated among the DOEAs of which they are members in such manner as to equalize as nearly as possible the allocation of such Common Members among such DOEAs.
(c)To the extent practical and desired by the DOEAs, the allocation of Common Members shall take into account the amount of customer activity conducted by each member in Covered Securities such that Common Members shall be allocated among the DOEAs of which they are members in such manner as most evenly divides the Common Members with the largest amount of customer activity among such DOEAs.
(d)The DOEAs shall make general reallocations of Common Members from time-to-time, as it deems appropriate. (e)] All Participants shall promptly notify the DOEAs no later than the next scheduled meeting of any change in membership of Common Members. [Whenever a Common Member ceases to be a member of its DOEA, that DOEA shall promptly inform the other DOEAs, which will promptly review the matter and reallocate the Common Member to the extent practical. (f)] A DOEA may request that a Common Member that is allocated to it be reallocated to another DOEA by giving thirty days written notice thereof. The DOEAs in their discretion may approve such request and reallocate such Common Member to another DOEA. [(g) All determinations by the DOEAs with respect to allocations, if there are more than two DOEAs, shall be by the affirmative vote of a majority of the DOEAs of which such firm is a Common Member, otherwise by negotiation and consensus.] VII. Each DOEA shall conduct an examination of each Common Member [allocated to it on a cycle not less frequently than agreed upon by all DOEAs]. The [other] Participants agree that, upon request, relevant information in their respective files relative to a Common Member will be made available to the applicable DOEA. At each meeting of the Council, each DOEA shall be prepared to report on the status of its examination program for the previous quarter and any period prior thereto that has not previously been reported to the Council. [In the event a DOEA believes it will not be able to complete the examination cycle for its allocated firms, it will so advise the Council. The DOEAs may undertake to remedy this situation by reallocating selected firms or lengthening the cycles for selected firms, with the approval of all other DOEAs.] VIII. Each DOEA will promptly furnish a copy of the Examination report, relating to Covered Securities, of any examination made pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement to each other Participant of which the Common Member examined is a member. IX. Each DOEA's Regulatory Responsibility shall for each Common Member allocated to it include investigations into terminations “for cause” of associated persons relating to Covered Securities, unless such termination is related solely to another Participant's market. In the latter instance, that Participant to whose market the termination for cause relates shall discharge Regulatory Responsibility with respect to such termination for cause. In connection with a DOEA's examination, investigation and/or enforcement proceeding regarding a Covered Security-related termination for cause, the other Participants of which the Common Member is a member shall furnish, upon request, copies of all pertinent materials related thereto in their possession. As used in this Section, “for cause” shall include, without limitation, terminations characterized on Form U5 under the label “Permitted to Resign,” “Discharge” or “Other.” X. Each DOEA shall discharge the Regulatory Responsibility for each Common Member allocated to it relative to a Covered Securities-related customer complaint †2 unless such complaint is uniquely related to another Participant's market. In the latter instance, the DOEA shall forward the matter to that Participant to whose market the matter relates, and the latter shall discharge Regulatory Responsibility with respect thereto. If a Participant receives a customer complaint for a Common Member related to a Covered Security for which the Participant is not the DOEA, the Participant shall promptly forward a copy of such complaint to the DOEA. †2 For purposes of complaints, they can be reported pursuant to Form U4, Form U5 or RE-3 and any amendments thereto. XI. Any written notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a comparable means of electronic communication to each Participant entitled to receipt thereof, to the attention of the Participant's representative on the Council at the Participant's then principal office or by e-mail at such address as the representative shall have filed in writing with the Chair. XII. The Participants shall notify the Common Members of this Agreement by means of a uniform joint notice approved by the Council. XIII. This Agreement may be amended in writing duly approved by each Participant. XIV. Any of the Participants may manifest its intention to cancel its participation in this Agreement at any time by giving the Council written notice thereof at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such cancellation. Upon receipt of such notice the Council shall allocate, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, any Common Members for which the petitioning party was the DOEA. Until such time as the Council has completed the reallocation described above, the petitioning Participant shall retain all its rights, privileges, duties and obligations hereunder. XV. The cancellation of its participation in this Agreement by any Participant shall not terminate this Agreement as to the remaining Participants. This Agreement will only terminate following notice to the Commission, in writing, by the then Participants that they intend to terminate the Agreement and the expiration of the applicable notice period. Such notice shall be given at least six months prior to the intended date of termination, provided that in the event a notice of cancellation is received from a Participant that, assuming the effectiveness thereof, would result in there being just one remaining member of the Council, notice to the Commission of termination of this Agreement shall be given promptly upon the receipt of such notice of cancellation, which termination shall be effective upon the effectiveness of the cancellation that triggered the notice of termination to the Commission. *XVI.* [LIMITATION OF LIABLITY] No Participant nor the Council nor any of their respective directors, governors, officers, employees or representatives shall be liable to any other Participant in this Agreement for any liability, loss or damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of Regulatory Responsibility as provided hereby or for the failure to provide any such Responsibility, except with respect to such liability, loss or damages as shall have been suffered by one or more of the Participants and caused by the willful misconduct of one or more of the other participants or their respective directors, governors, officers, employees or representatives. No warranties, express or implied, are made by any or all of the Participants or the Council with respect to any Regulatory Responsibility to be performed by each of them hereunder. *XVII.* [RELIEF FROM RESPONSIBILITY] Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 17d-2 promulgated pursuant thereto, the Participants join in requesting the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon its approval of this Agreement or any part thereof, to relieve those Participants which are from time to time participants in this Agreement which are not the DOEA as to a Common Member of any and all Regulatory Responsibility with respect to the matters allocated to the DOEA. IV. Solicitation of Comments In order to assist the Commission in determining whether to approve the 17d-2 plan, interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number S7-966 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-966. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed plan that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plan between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the plan also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, FINRA, NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-966 and should be submitted on or before July 16, 2008. V. Discussion The Commission continues to believe that the proposed plan is an achievement in cooperation among the SRO participants, and will reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to the designated SRO the responsibility for certain options-related sales practice matters that would otherwise be performed by multiple SROs. The plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to firms that are members of more than one of the SRO participants. In addition, because the SRO participants coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the plan, the plan promotes, and will continue to promote, investor protection. Under paragraph
(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The primary purpose of the amendment is to make FINRA the sole DOEA for common members that are members of FINRA. By declaring it effective today, the amended plan can reflect, without undue delay, the fact that the NASD and the member regulation functions of the NYSE have been consolidated, resulting in the transfer of certain regulatory responsibilities, including regulatory responsibilities under the amended plan, to FINRA. 18 The prior version was similarly noticed and declared effective all in one document. Finally, the Commission does not believe that the amendment to the plan raises any new regulatory issues that the Commission has not previously considered. 18 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56145 (July 27, 2007), 72 FR 42169 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-23). VI. Conclusion This order gives effect to the amended plan submitted to the Commission that is contained in File No. S7-966. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, 19 that the amended plan dated June 5, 2008 by and between the Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, FINRA, NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and Phlx filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 is hereby approved and declared effective. 19 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). *It is further ordered* that those SRO participants that are not the DOEA as to a particular common member are relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to the common member's DOEA under the amended plan to the extent of such allocation. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14330 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of: Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Benguet Corp., Clean Systems Technology Group, Ltd., Family Golf Centers, Inc., Graham-Field Health Products, Inc., Lechters, Inc., Symbiat, Inc., Texfi Industries, Inc., and Value Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a Galea Life Sciences, Inc.); Order of Suspension of Trading Date: June 23, 2008. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2004. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Benguet Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2002. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Clean Systems Technology Group Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2004. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Family Golf Centers, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2000. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Graham-Field Health Products, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 1999. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Lechters, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended May 5, 2001. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Symbiat, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2002. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Texfi Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended July 30, 1999. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Value Holdings, Inc. (n/k/a Galea Life Sciences, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended July 31, 2001. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 23, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 7, 2008. By the Commission. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1388 Filed 6-23-08; 10:50 am]
Connectionstraces to 73
Traces to 73 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
107 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 108-7
  • 117 Stat. 39
  • 19 USC 81a-81u
  • 15 CFR 400
  • 15 USC 4001-21
  • 15 CFR 325
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)
  • 19 USC 3332(q)
  • 34 CFR 79
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 18 CFR 380
  • 40 CFR 766
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
  • 40 CFR 745.103
  • 40 CFR 745.82
  • 40 CFR 2
  • Pub. L. 102-550
  • 15 USC 2681-2692
  • 40 CFR 745
  • 40 CFR 745.324(b)(1)(ii)
  • 40 CFR 745.324(b)(1)(iii)
  • 40 CFR 745.324(b)(2)
  • 40 CFR 745.326
  • 40 CFR 745.325(a)(1)
  • 40 CFR 745.326(b)(1)
  • 40 CFR 745.326(b)(2)
  • 40 CFR 745.325(a)(2)
  • 40 CFR 745.326(c)(1)
  • 40 CFR 745.326(c)(2)
  • 40 CFR 745.83
  • 40 CFR 745.85
  • 40 CFR 745.85(a)
  • 40 CFR 745.86
  • 40 CFR 745.88
  • 40 CFR 155
  • 40 CFR 155.42(c)
+ 67 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of funding opportunity
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 325.6
C.F.R.§ 325.11
C.F.R.§ 351.214
U.S.C.§ 1361
F. App'x629 F.2d 1351
F. Supp.568 F. Supp. 424
SCOTUS435 U.S. 679
Cites 180 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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