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 · 2008-07-08 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Notices

Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

125,431 words·~570 min read·/register/2008/07/08/08-1420

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 131 Tuesday, July 8, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc., Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Air Tractor, Inc., (Air Tractor) Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively visually inspect the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure for loose fasteners and inspect the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets for cracks and/or corrosion. The AD would also require you to replace any damaged parts found as a result of the inspections and install an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements. This proposed AD results from a report of a Model AT-402 airplane with a loose upper rudder hinge caused by fatigue. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct loose fasteners; any cracks in the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets; or corrosion of the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure. Hinge failure adversely affects ability to control yaw and has led to the rudder folding over in flight. This condition could allow the rudder to contact the elevator and affect ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Air Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; facsimile:
(940)564-5612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; facsimile:
(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We received two reports (one Air Tractor Model AT-602 airplane and one Model AT-802A airplane) of in-flight rudder separation at the upper attach hinge area and other reports of Models AT-502B, AT-602, and AT-802/802A airplanes with loose hinges, skin cracks, or signs of repairs to the affected area. Hinge failure adversely affects ability to control yaw and has led to the rudder folding over in flight. This condition could allow the rudder to contact the elevator and affect ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. Consequently, we issued AD 2006-23-14 (71 FR 66661, November 16, 2006). AD 2006-23-14 requires you to repetitively visually inspect the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure (vertical fin skins, spars, hinges, and brackets) for loose fasteners, cracks, and/or corrosion. This AD also requires you to replace any damaged parts found as a result of the inspection and install an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Since issuing AD 2006-23-14, we have received a report of a Model AT-402 airplane with a loose upper rudder hinge caused by fatigue. Therefore, we are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on the Model AT-402 airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #247, revised June 2, 2008; and Snow Engineering Co. Process Specification Number 145, dated December 6, 1991. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting (visually) the rudder and fin hinge attaching structure for loose fasteners, any cracks in the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets, or corrosion; • Replacing any damaged parts found as a result of the inspection; • Installing an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge; and • Balancing of the rudder. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively visually inspect the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure for loose fasteners, any cracks in the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets, or corrosion. This proposed AD would also require you to replace any damaged parts found as a result of the inspection and install an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 220 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not applicable $80 $17,600 Any required repairs will vary depending upon the damage found, and any replacements required will vary based on the results of the inspection. Based on this, we have no way of determining the potential repair and/or replacement costs for each airplane or the number of airplanes that will need the repairs and/or replacements based on the result of the inspections. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $400 $217 $617 Authority for this Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Air Tractor, Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by September 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B airplanes, serial numbers 0694 through 1176, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a Model AT-402 airplane with a loose upper rudder hinge caused by fatigue. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose fasteners; any cracks in the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets; or corrosion of the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure. Hinge failure adversely affects ability to control yaw and has led to the rudder folding over in flight. This condition could allow the rudder to contact the elevator and affect ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect visually the rudder and vertical fin hinge attachment for loose fasteners; and inspect the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges or brackets for cracks and/or corrosion Initially inspect when the airplane reaches a total of 3,500 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done. Thereafter, repetitively inspect at intervals not to exceed every 100 hours TIS. Installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(3) of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #247, revised June 2, 2008.
(2)If you find any damage as a result of any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, you must:
(i)Replace any damaged parts with new parts and
(ii)Do the installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where you find any damaged parts. The installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(3) of this AD terminates the action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #247, revised June 2, 2008; and Snow Engineering Co. Process Specification Number 145, dated December 6, 1991.
(3)Do the installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge When the airplane reaches a total of 5,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done. The installation of the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(3) of this AD terminates the action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #247, revised June 2, 2008; and Snow Engineering Co. Process Specification Number 145, dated December 6, 1991.
(4)Do not install any rudder without the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge required by paragraph (e)(3) of this AD As of the effective date of this AD Not Applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; facsimile:
(210)308-3370. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; facsimile:
(940)564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 1, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-15456 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0748; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-041-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button. This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference which could result in a situation where, during emergency procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0748; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency AD No. 2008-0081-E, dated April 25, 2008, (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button. This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference which could result in a situation where, during emergency procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended. For the reasons described above, this EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires a check of the gap between the landing gear control button and the floor panel and, if the gap is found to be insufficient, modification of the floor panel. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 72 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour (no labor cost; work-hour warranty given by manufacturer until May 31, 2009). Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,760 or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EADS SOCATA:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0748; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-041-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by August 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 364, 367, and 370 through 439, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button. This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference which could result in a situation where, during emergency procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended. For the reasons described above, this EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires a check of the gap between the landing gear control button and the floor panel and, if the gap is found to be insufficient, modification of the floor panel. Actions and Compliance
(f)For airplanes that have had the floor panel removed for maintenance or if it cannot be positively determined that the floor panel has not been removed at any time, do the following actions, unless already done:
(1)Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, inspect the gap between the landing gear control button and the floor panel. Do the inspection following paragraph A of the Accomplishment Instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008.
(2)If the gap is below the limits specified in paragraph A of EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008, before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the floor panel following paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008.
(g)For airplanes in which it can be positively determined that the floor panel has not been removed at any time, within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, modify the floor panel following paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(h)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Special Flight Permit
(i)A single ferry flight of the airplane with landing gear extended is allowed in order to reach the nearest maintenance facility where the inspection and modification is to be done. Related Information
(j)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Emergency AD No. 2008-0081-E, dated April 25, 2008; and EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008 for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 1, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-15461 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-087-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S. A. (EMBRAER) Models EMB-110P1 and EMB-110P2 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of the comment period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier supplemental NPRM for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found cases of corrosion at the regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent cracking of the affected parts, compromising the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-087-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier supplemental NPRM for the specified products, which was published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2007 (72 FR 10093). That earlier supplemental NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above. Since that supplemental NPRM was issued, Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S. A. (EMBRAER) issued Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007. This revision added a concurrent requirement to do EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 02, 2007. The Age ncia Nacional de Aviac a o Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2006-10-01R1, dated August 30, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found cases of corrosion at the regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent cracking of the affected parts, compromising the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. Since this condition may occur in other aircraft of the same type design and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in the indicated time limit. Inspection for corrosion at regions of Wings-to Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks; and if applicable, removal of the detected corrosion. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007; and Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 02, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Comments We have considered the following comments received on the earlier NPRM. Comment Issue No. 1: Extend the Implementation Period Business Air, Inc. and Royal Air Freight comment that the proposed AD, as written, would unnecessarily interrupt their service and bankrupt the companies due to their reliance on this airplane type. They request the implementation period of the proposed AD be extended to prevent grounding of the aircraft. Business Air, Inc. requests the time extension to develop an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). The compliance times specified in the proposed AD could be adjusted to accommodate a reasonable time period for maintenance planning. According to 14 CFR 39.19, the FAA approves AMOCs or changes in compliance times, if we determine the proposal provides an acceptable level of safety. In this case, the FAA understands that some of the affected airplanes are being maintained under operators' approved aircraft inspection and maintenance programs. It is possible that many of the proposed AD actions can be integrated into these existing inspection and maintenance programs. Since the programs vary from operator to operator, we cannot write a compliance time to adhere to every maintenance schedule. We will consider changes in the compliance time or alternative actions presented to the FAA using the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD. We are not changing the proposed AD as a result of this comment. Comment Issue No. 2: The Manufacturer Is Attempting To Ground the Aircraft AirNow (also identified as Business Air, Inc.) states the proposed AD is an attempt by the manufacturer to ground the aircraft and relieve itself of support responsibilities. They state that these aircraft are operated in different climatic conditions and are subjected to widely varying degrees of corrosion conditions. In addition, the aircraft are operated with differing levels of oversight and surveillance by the FAA. AirNow suggests the proposed AD does not take into account these differences in operational environment. We infer that the commenter wants a differentiation of compliance times based on operational environment or wants the NPRM withdrawn. The FAA does not agree that the NPRM should be withdrawn. We agree that airplanes are operated under varied levels of oversight and climatic conditions internationally; however, the instructions issued from the airworthiness authority of the state of design apply to all airplanes of this type design, regardless of use. Under the aviation relationship between Brazil and the United States, Brazil monitors the continued airworthiness of aircraft it is the State of Design for and issues mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)when they determine it is necessary. FAA Order 8040.5, *Airworthiness Directive Process for Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information* (MCAI), directs the FAA in responding to foreign issued MCAI. Under this order, the FAA accepts and analyzes the MCAI as developed by the State of Design, in this case Brazil, which is responsible for the continued airworthiness of the EMB-110 design. After reviewing the MCAI and FAA service difficulty reports that revealed some corrosion related reports, we determined that an unsafe condition exists and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design registered in the United States. We are not changing the proposed AD as a result of this comment. Comment Issue No. 3: The Costs Are Underestimated Royal Air Freight and AirNow comment that the proposed AD underestimates the actual cost and does not recognize the damage that will be done to surrounding structure or components when the proposed maintenance is done. We accept the MCAI as developed by the State of Design, in this case Brazil, which is responsible for the continued airworthiness of the EMB-110 design. Therefore, we rely on ANAC to advise us on the time and materials necessary to accomplish the actions in the service information. The FAA cannot determine the impact of the proposed AD actions to surrounding structure beyond what was provided to us by ANAC. We based the cost estimates on the information supplied by ANAC, and we realize some operators may incur higher or lower costs. On January 12, 2007, Embraer revised the service information. The revision is discussed below in Comment Issue No. 4. We have reviewed the revised information and have revised the costs accordingly. Comment Issue No. 4: Revised Service Information Embraer notes the service bulletin identified in the proposed AD has been revised. The revised service information is Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007. This service bulletin adds more requirements to address the unsafe condition, including compliance with Service Bulletin, S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 02, 2007. Embraer also comments that the revised service information incorporates an AMOC that ANAC issued to allow the use of repetitive inspections from Part III of the revised service bulletin in lieu of Part IV compliance. The commenter proposes new language for the NPRM that includes the new information mentioned in their comment. We have reviewed the revised service information and agree that we should include it in the proposed AD. We have revised the proposed AD to include EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 2, 2007. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. We also determined from our review that some of the actions required in the service information may go beyond addressing the unsafe condition listed in the MCAI. We are changing this proposed AD to require, at this time, only the actions we determined necessary to address the unsafe condition. We will continue to evaluate the other MCAI actions and monitor the corrosion issue. We may take future AD action if we determine an additional unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop. Certain changes described above change the scope of the earlier NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed AD. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD will affect 38 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 95 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $288,800, or $7,600 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need any necessary follow-on actions or the cost associated with those actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S. A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26598; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-087-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by September 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Models EMB-110P1 and EMB-P2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found cases of corrosion at the regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. Such corrosion may lead to subsequent cracking of the affected parts, compromising the aircraft structural integrity, which may in turn lead to structural failure and/or loss of some control surface. Since this condition may occur in other aircraft of the same type design and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in the indicated time limit. Inspection for corrosion at regions of Wings-to Fuselage attachments, Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks; and if applicable, removal of the detected corrosion. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD or within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, carry out a general visual inspection for corrosion at the regions of the wings-to-fuselage attachments, vertical stabilizer to fuselage attachments, rib 1 half-wing, and passenger seat tracks, following Parts I, II, and III of the Embraer—Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (EMBRAER) Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007.
(i)Before further flight, all structures found corroded or cracked as a result of the inspections done above must be addressed following the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007.
(ii)Previous accomplishment of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-A007, dated March 6, 2006, or the implementation of the tasks required by section VI of the Maintenance Planning Guides TP 110P2/145, PM 110/652, or PM 110/165, released by EMBRAER, are considered acceptable methods of compliance with the requirements of (f)(1) and (f)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2)Within the next 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a visual, and as applicable, dye-penetrant inspection in rib 1 external and internal regions, in the auxiliary fittings of the main box half-wings, and in the spar webs of half-wings. Do the inspections following the paragraph 3. ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 2, 2007. Before further flight, all structures found corroded or cracked as a result of the inspections done above must be corrected following the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 2, 2007. Note 1: The FAA is aware that most of the affected airplanes are maintained under operators' approved aircraft inspection and maintenance programs. The AD actions may be integrated into these existing inspection and maintenance programs. We will consider changes in the compliance time or alternative actions following the provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: We determined the requirement to do Part IV and Part V of EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007, may go beyond addressing the unsafe condition listed in the MCAI. We have removed those actions from this AD. We will continue to evaluate the additional MCAI actions and monitor the corrosion issue. We may take future AD action if we determine an additional unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil
(ANAC)AD No.: 2006-10-01R1, dated August 30, 2007; EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-0007, REVISION No.: 01, dated January 12, 2007; EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-00-A007, dated March 6, 2006; EMBRAER Service Bulletin S.B. No.: 110-57-0026, REVISION No.: 03, dated April 2, 2007; and Maintenance Planning Guides TP 110P2/145, PM 110/652, and PM 110/165, released by EMBRAER; for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 30, 2008. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-15510 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-164965-04] RIN 1545-BE77 Elections Regarding Start-Up Expenditures, Corporation Organizational Expenditures, and Partnership Organizational Expenses AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to the elections to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), organizational expenditures of corporations under section 248, and organizational expenses of partnerships under section 709. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 amended these three sections of the Code to provide similar rules for deducting these types of expenses that are paid or incurred after October 22, 2004. The regulations affect taxpayers that pay or incur these expenses and provide guidance on how to elect to deduct the expenses in accordance with the new rules. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be received by October 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-164965-04), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-164965-04), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-164965-04). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Grace Matuszeski,
(202)622-7900; concerning submission of comments or a request for a public hearing, Richard Hurst, at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov* or
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) to implement the changes to sections 195, 248, and 709 of the Code made by section 902 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418). The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments. Special Analyses This notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Grace Matuszeski of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.195-1 is revised to read as follows: § 1.195-1 Election to amortize start-up expenditures. [The text of this section is the same as the text of § 1.195-1T(a) through
(d)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] **Par. 3.** Section 1.248-1 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)and (c), and adding paragraphs
(d)through (f), to read as follows: § 1.248-1 Election to amortize organizational expenditures.
(a)[The text of this proposed amendment to § 1.248-1(a) is the same as the text of § 1.248-1T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .]
(c)through
(f)[The text of these proposed amendments to § 1.248-1(c) through
(f)are the same as the text of § 1.248-1T(c) through
(f)published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] **Par. 4.** Section 1.709-1 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 1.709-1 Treatment of organizational expenses and syndication costs.
(b)[The text of this proposed amendment to § 1.709-1(b) is the same as the text of § 1.709-1T(b)(1) through (b)(5) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .] Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-15457 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 948 [WV-113-FOR; OSM-2008-0009] West Virginia Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the West Virginia regulatory program (the West Virginia program) under the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). West Virginia is submitting a proposed amendment to revise its Code of State Regulations
(CSR)and the West Virginia Code, as contained in Committee Substitutes for Senate Bills 373 and 751. The proposed amendment covers a variety of issues including, but not limited to, statutory changes involving the special reclamation tax, the creation of alternative programs for the purpose of paying for the reclamation of forfeited sites including water treatment where required, and incremental bonding. Other provisions include regulatory revisions relating to public notice of permit applications, incidental boundary revisions, permit issuance findings, inspection of certain impoundments, reclamation of natural drainways subsequent to sediment pond removal, storm water runoff analysis, contemporaneous reclamation standards regarding excess spoil fills and bonding of certain types of excess spoil fills, and effluent limits and bond releases on remining operations. In addition, most blasting provisions have been removed from the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at Title 38 CSR 2 and will now only be found in the State's Surface Mining Blasting Rule at Title 199 CSR 1. On June 16, 2008, OSM published in a separate **Federal Register** notice, an interim approval of the State's alternative bonding provisions at section 22-3-11 of the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA) that specifically relates to the special reclamation tax and the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. OSM will accept comments on all other provisions of the program amendment pursuant to this proposed rule notice. DATES: We will accept written comments until 4 p.m., EDT August 7, 2008. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on August 4, 2008. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., EDT on July 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following two methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID OSM-2008-0009. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and do the following. Click on the “Advanced Docket Search” button on the right side of the screen. Type in the Docket ID OSM-2008-0009 and click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. The next screen will display the Docket Search Results for the rulemaking. If you click on OSM-2008-0009, you can view the proposed rule and submit a comment. You can also view supporting material and any comments submitted by others. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 Virginia Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301. Please include the rule identifier (WV-113-FOR) with your written comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency Docket ID (OSM-2008-0009) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. You may also request to speak at a public hearing by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Docket:* The proposed rule and any comments that are submitted may be viewed over the internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Look for Docket ID OSM-2008-0009. In addition, you may review copies of the West Virginia program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may also receive one free copy of this amendment by contacting OSM's Charleston Field Office listed below. Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027 Virginia Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301, Telephone:
(304)347-7158. E-mail: *chfo@osmre.gov.* West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304, Telephone:
(304)926-0490. In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following locations: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Morgantown Area Office, 604 Cheat Road, Suite 150, Morgantown, West Virginia 26508, Telephone:
(304)291-4004 (By Appointment Only). Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Beckley Area Office, 313 Harper Park Drive, Suite 3, Beckley, West Virginia 25801, Telephone:
(304)255-5265. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field Office, Telephone:
(304)347-7158. E-mail: *chfo@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the West Virginia Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the West Virginia Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 5915). You can also find later actions concerning West Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated April 8, 2008, and received electronically on April 17, 2008 (Administrative Record Number WV-1503), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). The amendment consists of changes to the West Virginia Code of State Regulations
(CSR)and the West Virginia Code, as contained in Committee Substitutes for Senate Bills 373 and 751. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373 authorizes revisions to the State's Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at 38 CSR 2 and its Surface Mining Blasting Regulations at 199 CSR 1. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373 was adopted by the Legislature on March 6, 2008, and signed into law by the Governor on March 28, 2008. West Virginia Code at paragraphs 64-3-1
(o)and
(p)authorize WVDEP to promulgate the revisions to its rules as legislative rules. This amendment contains a variety of topics, including new language for technical completeness, sediment control, storm water runoff, blasting, excess spoil fills, bonding programs, water quality, seismograph records, and definitions. In addition, the amendment contains Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751, which was adopted by the Legislature on March 8, 2008, and approved by the Governor on March 27, 2008. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 amended and reenacted section 22-3-11 of the WVSCMRA. As mentioned above, OSM has approved, on an interim basis, under a separate **Federal Register** (73 FR 33884) notice a portion of the bill relating to the special reclamation tax and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Through this notice, we are requesting public comment on the remaining revisions to the State's alternative bonding system that are authorized by Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751. The amendment is intended to improve the effectiveness of the West Virginia program and to render the West Virginia program no less effective than the Federal regulations. Throughout this proposed amendment, nonsubstantive changes from “Office” to “Secretary”, “Office” to “office”, “Office of Explosives and Blasting” to “Secretary” are made but not listed in this Proposed Rule Notice. Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373, West Virginia proposes the following amendments to its Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations at Title 38 CSR 2: 1. CSR 38-2-3.2.g Notice of Technical Completeness Notice of technical completeness is new language that is to be added to the State's regulations. It is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on a permit application once technical review is completed by the State and the application has been supplemented by the applicant after the close of the public comment period. As amended, subparagraph 3.2.g is new and reads as follows: 3.2.g. Notice of Technical Completeness. After the Secretary deems a Surface Mine Application technically complete, the Secretary shall cause the applicant to advertise that the application is technically complete. The one time notice shall state that the application has been deemed technically complete by the Secretary and include a fifteen
(15)day public review period: Provided, that, Notice of Technical Completeness is not necessary if the application was technically complete prior to the end of the comment period of the original advertisement or a decision is made within ninety
(90)days of the end of the comment period or informal conference. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of Section 513 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 773.6. 2. CSR 38-2-3.29.a Incidental Boundary Revisions
(IBRs)This amendment proposes to delete language regarding incidental boundary revisions that provides “or where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary that limited coal removal on areas immediately adjacent to the existing permit”. This proposal is in response to earlier OSM concerns about the State's incidental boundary revision requirements. See the March 2, 2006, **Federal Register** for further explanation (71 FR 10768). As amended, subparagraph 3.29.a reads as follows: 3.29.a. Incidental Boundary Revisions
(IBRs)shall be limited to minor shifts or extensions of the permit boundary into non-coal areas or areas where any coal extraction is incidental to or of only secondary consideration to the intended purpose of the IBR. IBRs shall also include the deletion of bonded acreage which is overbonded by another valid permit and for which full liability is assumed in writing by the successive permittee. Incidental Boundary Revisions shall not be granted for any prospecting operations, or to abate a violation where encroachment beyond the permit boundary is involved, unless an equal amount of acreage covered under the IBR for encroachment is deleted from the permitted area and transferred to the encroachment area. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 774.13(d). 3. CSR 38-2-3.32.b Findings—Permit Issuance This amendment proposes to delete the following language at subparagraph 3.32.b relating to required written findings for permit issuance: The Secretary will systematically prioritize the data collection and data compilation effort required by this paragraph on the ownership and control of violators in the following order: bond forfeitures, outstanding unabated cessation orders, delinquent civil penalties, and delinquent reclamation fees. To accomplish this objective, the Secretary will utilize the data in the Federal Applicant Violator System, the Environmental Resources Information Network, the Mine Safety and Health Administration R.31 Data Base, and the Energy Information Administration Data Base together with such other information as may be readily available. In addition, the Secretary will make reasonable efforts to identify and include the Mine Safety and Health Administration identification number for sites on the violation listing. As amended, subparagraph 3.32.b reads as follows: 3.32.b. Based on the information provided by applicants for surface mining permits pursuant to subdivisions 3.1.a, 3.1.b, 3.1.c, 3.1.d, 3.1.i, 3.1.j, and 3.1.k of this rule and any other reasonably available information, the Secretary will compile and maintain an accurate and up-to-date computerized listing of all persons who own or control surface mining operations with outstanding unabated cessation orders, delinquent civil penalties, delinquent reclamation fees, and bond forfeitures of record in the state since May 3, 1978. The listing will include, to the extent reasonably possible, all owners and controllers of the violator(s), described in subdivision 3.1.c of this rule. The Secretary will make reasonable efforts to determine the owners and controllers of the permittee, the operator if different from the permittee, and the lessor or mineral owner, where a contract mining situation exists. The procedures and listings described in this subsection do not apply to notices of violations and are subject to rights of rebuttable presumption. The Secretary is not obligated to use this information to conduct a systematic review of all existing permits for the purpose of identifying and subsequently suspending those, if any, which may have been improvidently issued. The Secretary will, using the computerized data bases, review prior to permit issuance all applications received after the effective date of this rule and make all reasonable efforts to determine at a minimum in each case whether outstanding violations (except for notices of violations), unabated cessation orders, delinquent civil penalties, and/or bond forfeitures exist on the part of the applicant, the owners or controllers of the operator, and the lessor and entities controlled by the lessor, (if the lessor retains rights to the coal after extraction) and, if so, withhold approval of the application until all violations are abated or otherwise resolved in accordance with the requirements of the Act and this rule. Where the information in the subject data bases is incomplete and where the information is not available or has not been made available to the Secretary prior to issuance of the permit, the Secretary shall not be held in violation of any of the requirements of the Act and this rule. However, where it is later determined that permits were improvidently issued as a result of inadequate information in the subject data bases or other sources available at the time the permit is issued, the Secretary shall initiate the procedures set forth in subsection 3.34 of this section. These proposed revisions delete unnecessary language and fall under the provisions of section 510 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 773.8 and 773.11. 4. CSR 38-2-5.4.e.1 Sediment Control: Inspections This amendment proposes to remove the words “Impoundments meeting” after “30 CFR 77.216(a).” This revision is to delete language that OSM previously disapproved relating to impoundments. See the March 2, 2006, **Federal Register** for further explanation (71 FR 10771). As amended, subparagraph 5.4.e.1 reads as follows: 5.4.e.1. A qualified registered professional engineer or other qualified professional specialist, under the direction of the professional engineer, shall inspect each impoundment or sediment control structure provided, that a licensed land surveyor may inspect those impoundments or sediment control or other water retention structures which do not meet the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a); the Class B or C criteria for dams in Earth Dams and Reservoirs, TR-60 or W. Va. Code § 22-14 *et seq* ., and which are not constructed of coal processing waste or coal refuse. The professional engineer, licensed land surveyor, or specialist shall be experienced in the construction of impoundments and sediment control structures. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.49(a)(1). 5. CSR 38-2-5.4.h.2 Abandonment Procedures This amendment proposes to delete language and add new language regarding the construction of natural drainways subsequent to sediment pond removal. WVDEP proposes to delete the following: “The natural drainway shall be returned as nearly as practicable to its original profile and cross section with the channel sides and bottom rock riprapped up to the top of the channels banks. The riprap requirement may be waived where the bottom and sides of the channel consist of bedrock,” and proposes to add the following: The natural drainway shall be returned as nearly as practicable to its original pattern, profile, and dimensions and stabilized to control erosion and be in accordance with the reclamation plan. The reclamation plan should also take into consideration channel and bank stability and habitat enhancement. As amended, subparagraph 5.4.h.2 reads as follows: 5.4.h.2. Embankment type sediment dams, embankment type excavated sediment dams and crib and gabion dams, and all accumulated sediment behind the dam shall be removed from the natural drainway. The natural drainway shall be returned as nearly as practicable to its original pattern, profile, and dimensions and stabilized to control erosion and be in accordance with the reclamation plan. The reclamation plan should also take into consideration channel and bank stability and habitat enhancement. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.56. 6. CSR 38-2-5.6.a Storm Water Runoff This amendment proposes to clarify what operations may be exempt from conducting a “Storm Water Runoff Analysis” by adding the following language: “Provided, however, an exemption may be considered on a case by case basis for mining operations with permitted acreage less than 50 acres. Furthermore, haulroads, loadouts, and ventilation facilities are excluded from this requirement. The storm water runoff analysis shall include” As amended, subparagraph 5.6.a reads as follows: 5.6.a. Each application for a permit shall contain a storm water runoff analysis. Provided, however, an exemption may be considered on a case by case basis for mining operations with permitted acreage less than 50 acres. Furthermore, haulroads, loadouts, and ventilation facilities are excluded from this requirement. The storm water runoff analysis shall include the following: These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14. 7. CSR 38-2-5.6.b Storm Water Runoff Plan This amendment proposes to change the time period from twenty-four
(24)to forty-eight
(48)hours in which the monitoring results of a one
(1)year, twenty-four
(24)hour storm event or greater must be reported to the Secretary by the permittee. As amended, subparagraph 5.6.b reads as follows: 5.6.b. Each application for a permit shall contain a runoff-monitoring plan which shall include, but is not limited to, the installation and maintenance of rain gauges. The plan shall be specific to local conditions. All operations must record daily precipitation and report monitoring results on a monthly basis and any one
(1)year, twenty-four
(24)storm event or greater must be reported to the Secretary within forty eight
(48)and shall include the results of a permit wide drainage system inspection. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 780.21 and 784.14. 8. CSR 38-2-5.6.d Phase-in Compliance Schedule This amendment proposes to delete language regarding the phase-in compliance schedule for the submission of the storm water runoff analysis that expired in June 2006. Because the deadline for the submission of storm water runoff analysis has expired, the State is proposing to delete subparagraphs 5.6.d, d.1, d.1.a, d.1.b, d.1.c, d.1.d, and d.1.e. There is no Federal counterpart for this proposed revision. 9. CSR 38-2-6 Blasting This amendment proposes to remove duplication of rules for blasting at Section 6. At Subsections 6.1 and 6.2, this amendment proposes to add, “and be in accordance with the requirements with Surface Mining Blasting Rule, Title 199 Series 1.” at the end of the subsections. Subsections 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 are proposed to be deleted entirely. As amended, Subsections 6.1 and 6.2 read as follows: 6.1. General Requirements. Each operator shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws in the use of explosives. A blaster certified by the Department of Environmental Protection shall be responsible for all blasting operations including the transportation, storage and use of explosives within the permit area in accordance with the blasting plan and be in accordance with the requirements with Surface Mining Blasting Rule, Title 199 Series 1. 6.2. Blasting Plan. Each application for a permit, where blasting is anticipated, shall include a blasting plan. The blasting plan shall explain how the applicant will comply with the blasting requirements of the Act, this rule, and the terms and conditions of the permit. This plan shall include, at a minimum, information setting forth the limitations the operator will meet with regard to ground vibration and airblast, the basis for those limitations, the methods to be applied in controlling the adverse effects of blasting operations and be in accordance with the requirements with Surface Mining Blasting Rule, Title 199 Series 1. These proposed cross references to the State's blasting rules at Title 199, Series 1 fall under the provisions of the Federal blasting regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.61-68. 10. CSR 38-2-7.4.b.1.J.1.(c) Front Faces of Valley Fills This amendment proposes to add language that was previously removed and not approved by OSM in the March 2, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 10776). This proposed revision falls under the provisions of 30 CFR 816.22(d)(1) and 816.71(e)(2). West Virginia is proposing to reinstate the language as follows: 7.4.b.1.J.1.(c) Surface material shall be composed of soil and the materials described in subparagraph 7.4.b.1.D. 11. CSR 38-2-14.15.c.2 Reclaimed Areas: Calculation of Disturbed Areas This amendment proposes to clarify contemporaneous reclamation rules and bonding of excess spoil disposal fills by deleting “area is available to do so;” and adding “first two lifts are in and are seeded” at the end of the subparagraph. As amended, subparagraph 14.15.c.2 reads as follows: 14.15.c.2. Areas within the confines of excess spoil disposal fills which are under construction provided the fill is being constructed in the “conventional” method, *i.e.* , completed from the toe up, or those fills which are being constructed progressively in lifts from the toe up or are being progressively completed from the toe up by constructing benches and appropriate drainage control structures (ditches, flumes, channels, etc.) from the toe up as soon as the first two lifts are in and are seeded. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816.71 and 816.100. 12. CSR 38-2-14.15.d.3 Excess Spoil Disposal Fills: Bonding Proposed Fill Areas This amendment proposes to clarify the contemporaneous reclamation and bonding requirements of certain excess spoil disposal fills by deleting the phrase “to use single lift top down construction” and adding “with erosion protection zones” after the word “designed”. As amended, subparagraph 14.15.d.3 reads as follows: 14.15.d.3. Operations that propose fills that are designed with erosion protection zones shall bond the proposed fill areas based upon the maximum amount per acre specified in WV Code § 22-3-12(b)(1). These proposed revisions are to further clarify the requirements pursuant to the provisions of 30 CFR 800.14 and 816.71. 13. CSR 38-2-14.15.e Applicability This amendment proposes to remove the applicability schedule that expired in 2004. The applicability schedule regarding the implementation of contemporaneous reclamation plans at subparagraphs 14.15.e, 14.15.e.1 and 14.15.e.2 are removed completely and 14.15.e.3 is renumbered as 14.15.e. There are no Federal counterparts to the subparagraphs that the State proposes to delete. 14. CSR 38-2-23.3 Water Quality—Coal Remining Operations This amendment proposes to make the State's remining rule consistent with the proposed changes in the State's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules by deleting the phrase “which began after February 4, 1987, and on a site which was mined prior to August 3, 1977,” after “operation”; deleting “water quality exemptions” and adding “effluent limitations” after “the”; adding “Title 47 Series 30 subdivision” and deleting “Subsection” and adding “6.2.d.” after “in”; and finally, deleting “subsection (p), section 301 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended or a coal remining operation as defined in 40 CFR Part 434 as amended may qualify for the water quality exemptions set forth in 40 CFR Part 434 as amended.” As amended, Subsection 23.3 reads as follows: 23.3 Water Quality A coal remining operation may qualify for the effluent limitations set forth in Title 47 Series 30 subdivision 6.2.d. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)coal remining requirements at 40 CFR 434.70-75. 15. CSR 38-2-23.4 Requirements to Release Bonds This amendment, which relates to bond release, proposes to delete the following language: “and the terms and conditions set forth in the NPDES Permit in accordance with subsection (p), section 301 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended or 40 CFR Part 434 as amended.” This proposed revision is to eliminate language in its rules that the State finds is no longer essential due to changes in EPA's coal remining requirements (72 FR 68000-68031). Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 373, West Virginia proposes the following amendments to its Surface Mining Blasting Regulations at Title 199 CSR 1: 16. Title 199 Surface Mining Blasting Rule CSR 199-1-2-2.39 Definitions Various definitions relating to blasting at CSR 199-1-2-2.39 are amended by nonsubstantive grammatical changes, such as putting all definition terms in quotation marks; changing the term “Office of Explosives and Blasting” to “Secretary”; and renumbering due to additions and/or deletions of terms. Because they are nonsubstantive in nature, these proposed changes are not addressed herein. The following definitions at CSR 199-1-2 are revised as follows: At Subsection 2.8, “ *Blast Site* ” is amended and means the area where explosive material is handled during loading into boreholes. This includes the perimeter area formed by the loaded blast holes as measured, 50 feet in all directions from the collar of the outermost loaded borehole; or that area protected from access by a physical barrier to prevent entry to the loaded blast holes. At Subsection 2.27, “ *Other Structure* ” is amended and means any man made structure excluding “ *protected structures* ” within or outside the permit areas which includes but is not limited to, gas wells, gas lines, water lines, towers, airports, underground mines, tunnels, bridges, and dams. The term does not include structures owned, operated, or built by the permittee for the purpose of carrying out surface mining operations. At Subsection 2.35, “ *Secretary* ” is substantively identical to former Subsection 2.23 and means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection or the Secretary's authorized agent. At Subsection 2.36, “ *Structure* ” is amended and means “a *protected structure* ” or “ *other structure* ” which is any manmade structures within or outside the permit areas which include, but is not limited to, dwellings, outbuildings, commercial buildings, public buildings, community buildings, institutional buildings, gas lines, water lines, towers, airports, underground mines, tunnels and dams. The term does not include structures built and/or utilized for the purpose of carrying out the surface mining operation. At Subsection 2.37, “ *Supervised a Blasting Crew* ” is amended and means a person that is responsible for the conduct of a blasting crew(s) and/or that the crew(s) is directed by that person. At Subsection 2.38, “ *Surface Mine Operations* ” is amended and means all areas of surface mines, and surface area of underground mines (including shafts and slopes), areas ancillary to these operations, and the reclamation of these areas, including adjacent areas ancillary to the operations, i.e. , preparation and processing plants, storage areas, shops, haulageways, roads, and trails, which are covered by the provisions of W. Va. Code § 22-3-1 *et seq.,* and rules promulgated under that article. At Subsection 2.39, “ *Worked on a Blasting Crew* ” is amended and means that a person has first-hand experience in storing, handling, transporting, and using explosives, and has participated in the loading, connecting, and initiation processes of blast, and has experience in blasting procedures, and preparation of blast holes. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of section 515(b)(15) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816/817.61-68 and Part 850. 17. CSR 199-1-3.2. Blasting Plans Subparagraph 3.2.a.5, regarding blasting plans, is amended by adding language to minimize, not reduce, dust outside the permit area. Subparagraph 3.2.b, regarding blasting plans, is amended by requiring that the person conducting the review shall be experienced in common blasting practices utilized on surface mining operations and shall be a certified inspector. In addition, the reviewer will take into consideration the proximity of individual dwellings, structures, or communities to the blasting operations. Subparagraph 3.2.c is amended to provide that the blasting plan shall also contain an inspection and monitoring procedure to insure that all blasting operations are conducted to minimize, not eliminate, to the maximum extent technically feasible, adverse impacts to the surrounding environment and surrounding occupied dwellings. In addition, this subsection is amended to provide that all seismographs used to monitor airblast or ground vibrations or both shall comply with the ISEE Performance Specifications for Blasting Seismographs. Subparagraph 3.2.d is amended to provide that for operations where a blasting related notice of violation
(NOV)or cessation order
(CO)has been issued; the Secretary shall review the blasting plan as soon as possible, but within thirty
(30)days of final disposition of the NOV or CO. Subparagraph 3.2.e relating to the review of a blasting plan where an enforcement action has been taken by the State is deleted in its entirety. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.61. 18. CSR 199-1-3.3 Public Notice of Blasting Operations Subparagraph 3.3.a, relating to public notice of blasting operations, is amended by requiring that at least ten
(10)days but not more than thirty
(30)days prior to commencing any blasting operations which detonate five
(5)pounds or more of explosives at any given time, the operator must publish a blasting schedule in a newspaper of general circulation in all the counties of the proposed permit area. The operator must republish and redistribute the schedule at least every twelve months in the same manner above. In addition, new language provides that the permittee must retain proof of publication. At subparagraph 3.3.b.1, new language is added that states, “Conspicuously place signs reading ‘Blasting Area' along the edge of any blasting area that comes within 100 feet of any public road right-of-way, and at the point where any other road provides access to the blasting area; and” and the existing language as follows is deleted “Warning signs shall be conspicuously displayed at all approaches to the blasting site, along haulageways and access roads to the mining operation and at all entrances to the permit area. The sign shall at a minimum be two feet by three feet (2′ x 3′) reading ‘WARNING! Explosives in Use’ and explaining the blasting warning and the all clear signals.” At subparagraph 3.3.b.2, new language is added that states, “At all entrances to the permit area from public roads or highways, place conspicuous signs which state ‘Warning! Explosives in Use,’ which clearly list and describe the meaning of the audible blast warning and all-clear signals that are in use,’ and which explain the marking of blasting areas and charged holes awaiting firing within the permit area. The signs shall at a minimum be two feet by three feet (2′ x 3′)” and the existing language as follows is being deleted “Where blasting operations will be conducted within one hundred
(100)feet of the outside right-of-way of a public road, signs reading “Blasting Area”, shall be conspicuously placed along the perimeter of the blasting area”. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.44 and 816/817.66. 19. CSR 199-1-3.4 Surface Blasting at Underground Mines This amendment proposes to add a new subparagraph, 3.4.b, regarding the regulation of surface blasting at underground mines. Subparagraph 3.4.b is amended by adding new language that provides that blasting activities for the development of slopes and shafts will be subject to this rule and regulated as surface blasting. The operator will submit a blast plan for the initial developmental blast of shafts and slopes, which will consider all aspects of surface coal mine blasting contained in 199 CSR 1. The Secretary will then only regulate and monitor for surface effects from ground vibration and airblast for the remainder of the shaft or slope until it intersects the coal seam to be mined. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 817.64. 20. CSR 199-1-3.5 Blast Record Subparagraph 3.5.a is amended to require that a blasting log book be on forms formatted in a manner prescribed by the Secretary. Subparagraph 3.5.c is amended to provide that the blasting log shall contain, at a minimum, but not limited to, the following information: Subparagraph 3.5.c.1 is amended to require the name of the company conducting blasting; Subparagraph 3.5.c.2 is amended to require the Article 3 permit number and shot number; Subparagraph 3.5.c.4 is amended to require the identification of nearest other structure not owned or leased by the operator, and indicate the direction and distance, in feet, to both such structures; Subparagraph 3.5.c.5 is amended to require estimated wind direction and speed; Subparagraph 3.5.c.6 is amended by adding a proviso to identify material blasted, including rock type and description of conditions; Subparagraph 3.5.c.9 is amended to require a description of different quantities of explosives used; Subparagraph 3.5.c.14 is amended to require type and length of decking; Subparagraph 3.5.c.15 is amended to require a description of use of blasting mats or other protective measures used; Subparagraph 3.5.c.16 is amended to require the quantities of delay detonators used; Subparagraph 3.5.c.17 is amended by adding the words “when required” in relation to seismograph records and air blast records; Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.A is amended to require that seismograph and air blast readings include trigger levels, frequency in Hz, and full waveform readings shall be attached to the blast log; Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.B is amended to require the name of the person who installed the seismograph, also the name of the person taking the readings; Subparagraph 3.5.c.17.D is amended to require certification of annual calibration; Subparagraph 3.5.c.18 is amended to require that the shot location be identified with use of blasting grids as found on the blast map, GPS, or other methods as defined by the approved blast plan; Subparagraph 3.5.c.19 is amended by deleting the requirement for a sketch of the delay pattern for all decks and to require a detailed sketch of delay pattern, including the detonation timing for each hole or deck in the entire blast pattern, borehole loading configuration, north arrow, distance and directions to structures; and Subparagraph 3.5.c.20 is amended to require the reasons and conditions to be noted in the blasting log for misfires, any unusual event, or violation of the blast plan. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.68. 21. CSR 199-1-3.6. Blasting Procedures Subparagraph 3.6.b.2 is amended to require that all approaches to the blast area remain guarded until the blaster signals the “all clear”. Subparagraph 3.6.c.1 regarding airblast limits is amended to provide that the maximum level in Hz be no more than -3dB. In addition, Footnote 1 was added to clarify that airblast is a flat response from 4 to 125 Hz range; at 2 Hz airblast, the microphone can have an error of no more than -3dB. Footnote 2 was added to clarify that the use of the frequency limits of 0.1 Hz or lower—flat response or C-weighted—slow response requires the Secretary's approval. Subparagraph 3.6.c.3 is amended to require that all seismic monitoring follow the International Society of Explosives Engineers
(ISEE)Field Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs, unless otherwise approved in the blasting plan. Subparagraph 3.6.g is amended to provide that blasting within five hundred
(500)feet of an underground mine not totally abandoned requires the concurrence of the Secretary, and the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training. Subparagraph 3.6.i is amended to require that all seismic monitoring follow the ISEE Field Practice Guidelines for Blasting Seismographs, unless otherwise approved in the blasting plan. Subparagraph 3.6.l is amended by adding a reference to 3.6.i in relation to the maximum airblast and ground vibration standards that do not apply to structures owned by the permittee and leased or not leased to another person. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.66, 816/817.67 and 816.79. 22. CSR 199-1-3.7 Blasting Control for “Other Structures” Subparagraph 3.7.a is amended by adding language to require that all “other structures” in the vicinity of the blasting area be protected from damage by the limits specified in paragraph 3.6.c.1 subdivisions 3.6.h. and 3.6.i. of this rule, unless waived in total or in part by the owner of the structure. In addition, the waiver of the protective [limits] may be accomplished by the establishment of a maximum allowable limit on air blast limits for the structure in the written waiver agreement between the operator and the structure owner. The waiver may be presented at the time of application in the blasting plan or provided at a later date and made available for review and approval by the Secretary. All waivers must be acquired before any blasts may be conducted [as] designed on that waiver. Language requiring that the operator specify the waiver in the blasting plan and that the Secretary approve all waivers is being deleted. In addition, language providing for alternative maximum allowable limits is being deleted. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.67. 23. CSR 199-1-3.8 Pre-Blast Surveys Subparagraph 3.8.a is amended by adding language to provide that at least thirty days prior to commencing blasting, an operator's designee shall notify in writing all owners and occupants of man made dwellings or structures that the operator or operator's designee will perform preblast surveys. In addition, language is added to require that attention be given to documenting and establishing the pre-blasting condition of wells and other water systems. Subparagraph 3.8.b is amended by adding language to require that surveys requested more than ten
(10)days before the planned initiation of the blasting shall be completed and submitted to the Secretary by the operator before the initiation of blasting. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.62. 24. CSR 199-1-3.9 Pre-blast Surveyors Subparagraph 3.9.a is amended to require that, at a minimum, individuals applying as a pre-blast surveyor must have a combination of at least two
(2)of the following; 3.9.a.1 experience in conducting pre-blast surveys, or 3.9.a.2 technical training in a construction, or engineering related field, or 3.9.a.3 other related training deemed equivalent by the Secretary. In addition, language was added to clarify that all applicants must complete the pre-blast surveyor training provided by the Secretary prior to approval to conduct pre-blast surveys. The Secretary may establish a fee for approval of pre-blast surveyors. Language is being deleted which provides that experience working as a pre-blast surveyor may be acceptable in lieu of the education requirement. Subparagraph 3.9.c is amended to clarify that every three
(3)years after meeting initial qualifications for performing pre-blast surveys, those individuals that have met the requirements of subparagraph 3.9.a. of this rule must submit a written demonstration of qualifications of and ongoing experience performing pre-blast surveys. In addition, language was added to provide that those individuals who have no ongoing experience must attend the training required in 3.9.a. and all applicants for re-approval must attend a minimum of 4 hours continuing education training in a subject area relative to knowledge required for conducting pre-blast surveys. Furthermore, the Secretary must approve these training programs. Subparagraph 3.9.d is amended by adding language to require that individuals who assist in the collection of information for pre-blast surveys must complete, or be registered for, the pre-blast surveyor training provided by the Secretary in 3.9.a. Those registered to attend the next available training on the pre-blast survey requirements may assist in the collection of information for a period of no more than three
(3)months, and only under the direct supervision of an approved Pre-blast Surveyor. The Secretary shall maintain a list of all those individuals who have completed the pre-blast survey requirement training. Subparagraph 3.9.d is also amended by deleting language which provides that an individual who is not an approved pre-blast surveyor may conduct pre-blast surveys, working as a pre-blast surveyor-in-training, only if he or she has registered to attend pre-blast surveyor training at the next available opportunity. Pre-blast surveyors-in-training may conduct pre-blast surveys, only if he or she is conducting the survey under the direct supervision of an approved pre-blast surveyor. The approved pre-blast surveyor must co-sign any survey conducted by a pre-blast surveyor-in-training. Individuals may work as pre-blast surveyors-in-training for a period of no more than three months, prior to becoming approved pre-blast surveyors. Subparagraph 3.9.e is amended to provide that the Secretary may disqualify an approved pre-blast surveyor and remove the person from the list of approved pre-blast surveyors, if the person allows surveys to be submitted that do not meet the requirements of W. Va. Code 22-3-13a and subsection 3.8 of this rule. In addition, language was added to provide that any person who is disqualified may appeal to the Secretary, and if not resolved to the Surface Mine Board. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.62. 25. CSR 199-1-3.10 Pre-Blast Survey Review Subparagraph 3.10.f is amended by adding language to provide that all persons employed by the Secretary, whose duties include review of pre-blast surveys and training of pre-blast surveyors, shall meet the requirements for pre-blast surveyors as set forth in section 3.9. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.62. 26. CSR 199-1-4.1 Blaster Certification Requirements Subparagraph 4.1.a is amended to require each person acting in the capacity of a blaster and responsible for the blasting operation be certified by the Secretary. Subparagraph 4.1.b is amended to require that each applicant for certification be a minimum of twenty one
(21)years old. In addition, new language was added to provide that applicants who have blasting experience prior to the last three years, with documentation, may be considered by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis as qualifying experience for initial certification and re-certification; provided the requirements of 4.6.c. apply. Subparagraph 4.1.c is amended to clarify that the application for certification be on forms prescribed by the Secretary. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.61 and 850.14. 27. CSR 199-1-4.2 Training Subsection 4.2 is amended by adding language to provide that the training program will consist of the West Virginia Surface Mine Blasters Self-Study Guide Course and a classroom review of the self-study guide course. In addition, language was added to provide that completion of the classroom review part of the training program may not be required for first time applicants. Furthermore, applicants for certification or applicants for re-certification, who cannot document the experience requirements specified in subdivision 4.1.b. of this rule, must complete the West Virginia Surface Mine Blasters Self-Study Guide. Subparagraph 4.2.a is amended to provide that, prior to certification, all applicants, not just those who choose self study, attend a two
(2)hour Blaster's Responsibilities training session addressing certified blasters' responsibilities and the disciplinary procedures contained in subsections 4.9 and 4.10 of this rule. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.13. 28. CSR 199-1-4.3 Examination Subparagraph 4.3.b is amended to clarify that the examination for certified blaster consists of three parts. Subparagraph 4.3.d is amended to clarify that any person who fails to pass any part of the exam on the second attempt or every other subsequent attempt must certify that he/she has taken or retaken the classroom review training program described in subsection 4.2 of this rule prior to applying for another examination. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.14. 29. CSR 199-1-4.5 Blaster Certification Prohibitions Subparagraph 4.5.d is amended by adding language to provide that persons who have had their blasters certification suspended or revoked in any other state may be required to show cause as to why they should be considered for certification. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.15. 30. CSR 199-1-4.6 Retraining Subparagraph 4.6.c is amended to clarify that an applicant for recertification who does not meet the experience requirements of subdivision 4.1.b of this rule must take the training course defined in section 4.2. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.15. 31. CSR 199-1-4.7 Blaster's Certificate Subparagraph 4.7.d is amended by adding language to clarify that a certified blaster shall not take any instruction or direction on blast design, explosives loading, handling, transportation and detonation from a person not holding a West Virginia blasters certificate, if such instruction or direction may result in an unlawful act, or an improper or unlawful action that may result in unlawful effects of a blast. In addition, a person not holding a West Virginia blasters certification who requires a certified blaster to take such action may be prosecuted under W. Va. Code 22-3-17(c) or (i). These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.15. 32. CSR 199-1-4.9.a Suspension and Revocation Subparagraph 4.9.a.2 is amended by adding language relating to Imminent Harm Suspension. The new language is as follows: A certified inspector has the authority to issue a temporary suspension order to a certified blaster when an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public exists, or can reasonably be expected to cause significant, imminent environmental harm to land, air or water resource by any condition, practice, or violation of this rule or any permit condition. The temporary suspension order shall take effect immediately. 4.9.a.2.A. The Secretary shall formally investigate the incident(s) and provide written findings to the blaster within fifteen days following the effective date of the temporary suspension. 4.9.a.2.B. Informal Conference—Unless waived in writing by the certified blaster, an informal conference shall be held at or near the site relevant to the violation. This informal conference shall be held within twenty-four hours after the temporary suspension order becomes effective. The conference shall be held before the Secretary, who shall evaluate the blasters' performance and upon conclusion of the hearing shall; determine if the temporary suspension of the blaster shall remain in force, withdraw the suspension, or uphold in part. 4.9.a.2.C. Appeal to the Secretary—If a blaster chooses to appeal the results of the informal conference or the written findings of the initial investigation; they may appeal the results within in five days to the Secretary. The appeal shall include written reasons for the appeal. The Secretary shall conduct a hearing within ten days of receipt of the appeal. 4.9.a.2.D. Any blaster receiving a temporary suspension may appeal the decision of the Secretary to the Surface Mine Board. 4.9.a.5 is amended by adding language to provide that any blaster receiving a suspension or revocation may appeal the decision to the Secretary and to the Surface Mine Board. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 850.15. 33. CSR 199-1-4.13 Blasting Crew Subsection 4.13 is amended to provide that persons who are not certified and who are assigned to a blasting crew, or assist in the use of explosives, shall receive directions and on-the-job training from the certified blaster in the technical aspects of blasting operations, including applicable state and federal laws governing the storage, transportation, and proper use of explosives. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of the Federal blaster certification requirements at 30 CFR 816/817.61 and 850.13. 34. CSR 199-1-4.14 Reciprocity With Other States Subsection 4.14 is amended by adding language to clarify that reciprocity is a one time only process. Any blaster who has been issued a certification through reciprocity and fails to meet the recertification requirements will be required to reexamine and may be required to provide refresher training documentation, as per section 4.6.a of this rule. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of Section 719 of SMCRA and 30 CFR Part 850. 35. CSR 199-1-5.2 Filing a Blasting Damage Claim Subparagraph 5.2.a is amended to clarify that only a certified inspector will be assigned to conduct a field investigation to determine the initial merit of the damage claim and what such an investigation by a certified inspector is to include. Subparagraph 5.2.a.3 is amended to require that the inspector will make a written report on the investigation that describes the nature and extent of the alleged damage, taking into consideration the condition of the structure, observed defects, or pre-existing damage that is accurately indicated on a pre-blast survey, conditions of the structure that existed where there has been no blasting conducted by the operator, or other reliable indicators that the alleged damage actually pre-dated the blasting by the operator. In addition, the language was revised to clarify that the inspector will make one of the initial determinations in 5.2.a.3.A. through 5.2.a.3.C., notify the claims administrator, make a recommendation on the merit of the claim, and supply information that the claims administrator needs to sufficiently document the claim. The possible determinations are: 5.2.a.3.A. There is merit that blasting caused the alleged damage; or 5.2.a.3.B. There is no merit that blasting caused the alleged damage. 5.2.a.3.C. The determination of merit as to whether blasting caused or did not cause the alleged damage cannot be made. Subparagraph 5.2.a.4 is amended by deleting former 5.2.a.3.C and adding similar language to clarify that the inspector will inform the property owner of the following four resolution options available for the alleged blasting damage: 5.2.a.4.A. Withdraw the claim, with no further action required by the Secretary; 5.2.a.4.B. File a claim with the operator or the operator's general liability insurance carrier; 5.2.a.4.C. File a claim with the homeowner's insurance carrier; or 5.2.a.4.D. Submit to the Secretary's claims process. Subparagraph 5.2.a.5 is amended by deleting and adding language to provide that if the property owner declines part 5.2.a.4.D of this rule, the Secretary's involvement will be concluded. Subparagraph 5.2.a.6 is amended to clarify that the determination as to the merit of a claim is to be made by the inspector. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of 30 CFR 816/817.62. 36. CSR 199-1-6 Arbitration for Blasting Damage Claims Subsection 6.1, relating to the listing of arbitrators, is amended by adding language to provide that once a year the Environmental Advocate, and industry representatives (selected by the West Virginia Coal Association, Inc.) may move to strike up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the list, with cause. Subsection 6.4 is amended by adding language to require the parties for arbitration shall choose an arbitrator within fifteen
(15)days of receipt of the notice. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of Section 515(b)(15) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 816/817.62. 37. CSR 199-1-7 Explosive Material Fees Subsection 7.2 is amended by adding language to require copies of blast logs to verify the accuracy of the report and fee calculation made by operators. Subsection 7.3 is amended by adding language that for the purpose of this section; detonators, caps, detonating cords, and initiation systems are exempt from the calculation for explosive material fees. However, the Secretary may require reporting on the use of these products. These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of sections 515(b)(15) and 719 of SMCRA. Pursuant to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751, West Virginia proposes the following amendments to section 22-3-11 of the WVSMCRA: 38. WVSCMRA 22-3-11 Bonds; Amount and Method of Bonding; Bonding Requirements; Special Reclamation Tax and Funds; Prohibited Acts; Period of Bond Liability. This amendment revises section 22-3-11 of the WVSCMRA relating to the State's alternative bonding system. As stated in the WVDEP's April 8, 2008, letter transmitting the program amendment, the revisions contained in Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 related “* * * generally to the special reclamation tax by establishing the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund; continuing and reimposing a tax on clean coal mined for deposit into both funds; requiring the secretary to look at alternative programs; and authorizing secretary to promulgate legislative rules implementing the alternative programs.” Only substantive statutory revisions are addressed herein. Nonsubstantive editorial, formatting or recodification changes are not addressed in this rule. The provisions relating to the creation of the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund and the reinstatement and increase in the special reclamation tax to seven and four-tenths cents per ton as contained in section 22-3-11
(g)and (h)(1), respectively, have been approved by OSM on an interim basis in a separate **Federal Register** notice (June 16, 2008; 73 FR 33884). These provisions, while summarized in this amendment, are subject to public notice and comment in that separate **Federal Register** notice. OSM will render a final decision either separately or jointly on those provisions and all other provisions identified herein relating to the State's alternative bonding system after the close of both public comment periods. Subsection 22-3-11(a) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that the penal amount of the bond shall be for each acre or fraction of an acre. Subsection 22-3-11(g) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that the Special Reclamation Fund previously created is continued. In addition, the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund is created within the State Treasury into and from which moneys shall be paid for the purpose of assuring a reliable source of capital to reclaim and restore water treatment systems on forfeited sites. The moneys accrued in both funds, any interest earned thereon and yield from investments by the State Treasurer or West Virginia Investment Management Board are reserved solely and exclusively for the purposes set forth in this section and section seventeen, article one of this chapter. The funds shall be administered by the secretary who is authorized to expend the moneys in both funds for the reclamation and rehabilitation of lands which were subjected to permitted surface mining operations and abandoned after the third day of August, one thousand nine hundred seventy-seven, where the amount of the bond posted and forfeited on the land is less than the actual cost of reclamation, and where the land is not eligible for abandoned mine land reclamation funds under article two of this chapter. The secretary shall develop a long-range planning process for selection and prioritization of sites to be reclaimed so as to avoid inordinate short-term obligations of the assets in both funds of such magnitude that the solvency of either is jeopardized. The secretary may use both funds for the purpose of designing, constructing and maintaining water treatment systems when they are required for a complete reclamation of the affected lands described in this subsection. The secretary may also expend an amount not to exceed ten percent of the total annual assets in both funds to implement and administer the provisions of this article and, as they apply to the Surface Mine Board, articles one and four, chapter twenty-two-b of this code. Subsection 22-3-11(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to provide that for tax periods commencing on and after the first day of July, two thousand eight, every person conducting coal surface mining shall remit a special reclamation tax as follows:
(A)For the initial period of twelve months, ending the thirtieth day of June, two thousand nine, seven and four-tenths cents per ton of clean coal mined, the proceeds of which shall be allocated by the secretary for deposit in the Special Reclamation Fund and the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund;
(B)An additional seven cents per ton of clean coal mined, the proceeds of which shall be deposited in the Special Reclamation Fund. The tax shall be levied upon each ton of clean coal severed or clean coal obtained from refuse pile and slurry pond recovery or clean coal from other mining methods extracting a combination of coal and waste material as part of a fuel supply. The additional seven-cent tax shall be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted annually by the Legislature upon recommendation of the council pursuant to the provisions of section seventeen, article one of this chapter: *Provided* , That the tax may not be reduced until the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund have sufficient moneys to meet the reclamation responsibilities of the state established in this section. Subsection 22-3-11(h)(2) of the WVSCMRA is amended to clarify that in managing the Special Reclamation Program, the secretary shall:
(A)Pursue cost-effective alternative water treatment strategies; and
(B)Conduct formal actuarial studies every two years and conduct informal reviews annually on both the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Subsection 22-3-11(h)(3) of the WVSCMRA is amended to delete obsolete language relating to tasks that were to be completed by the secretary by December 31, 2005, and adding language to provide that prior to the thirty-first day of December, two thousand eight, the secretary shall:
(A)Determine the feasibility of creating an alternate program, on a voluntary basis, for financially sound operators by which those operators pay an increased tax into the Special Reclamation Fund in exchange for a maximum per acre bond that is less than the maximum established in subsection
(a)of this section;
(B)Determine the feasibility of creating an incremental bonding program by which operators can post a reclamation bond for those areas actually disturbed within a permit area, but for less than all of the proposed disturbance and obtain incremental release of portions of that bond as reclamation advances so that the released bond can be applied to approved future disturbance; and
(C)Determine the feasibility for sites requiring water reclamation by creating a separate water reclamation security account or bond for the costs so that the existing reclamation bond in place may be released to the extent it exceeds the costs of water reclamation. Subsection 22-3-11(h)(4) of the WVSCMRA is amended to provide that if the secretary determines that the alternative program, the incremental bonding program or the water reclamation account or bonding programs reasonably assure that sufficient funds will be available to complete the reclamation of a forfeited site and that the Special Reclamation Fund will remain fiscally stable, the secretary is authorized to propose legislative rules in accordance with article three, chapter twenty-nine-a of this code to implement an alternate program, a water reclamation account or bonding program or other funding mechanisms or a combination thereof. Subsection 22-3-11(l) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding language to clarify that the Tax Commissioner shall deposit the moneys collected with the Treasurer of the State of West Virginia to the credit of the Special Reclamation Fund and Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund. Existing language providing that the moneys in the fund are to be placed by the Treasurer in an interest bearing account with the interest being returned to the fund on an annual basis is being deleted. Subsection 22-3-11(m) of the WVSCMRA is amended by adding the words “in both funds” at the end of the sentence. The provision now reads, “At the beginning of each quarter, the secretary shall advise the State Tax Commissioner and the Governor of the assets, excluding payments, expenditures and liabilities, in both funds.” These proposed revisions fall under the provisions of section 509(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 800.11(e). III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether these amendments satisfy the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve these revisions, they will become part of the West Virginia program. Written Comments Send your written comments to OSM at one of the addresses given above. Your comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ). Availability of Comments 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. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. EDT on July 23, 2008. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If there is limited interest in participation in a public hearing, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Administrative Record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on an analysis of the State submission. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations that Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq* .). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: June 9, 2008. Thomas D. Shope, Regional Director, Appalachian Region. [FR Doc. E8-15438 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0422] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones: Central Massachusetts August Swim Events AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing safety zones for two swimming events in the Captain of the Port Boston zone. This rule is intended to restrict vessels from entering portions of the involved waterways during the respective events. The safety zones are necessary to protect participants and vessels from the hazards associated with a swim event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0422 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov* .
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Chief Petty Officer Eldridge McFadden at 617-223-3000. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0422), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0422) in the Search box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Boston, 427 Commercial St, Boston, MA 02109 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, and spectators at swimming events. Swim events pose a significant risk to the public because of the combination of numerous swimmers, high-speed vessels, and potentially congested waterways. A safety zone will reduce the risk to the public by separating swimmers from vessel traffic. Discussion of Proposed Rule The safety zones established are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during events in the Captain of the Port Boston area of responsibility, which may pose a hazard to the public. The safety zones described in subparagraph
(a)for this regulation will be enforced only immediately before and during the event. The Captain of the Port Boston will inform the public by all appropriate means including Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and on-scene Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary units. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Assessment is unnecessary. The Coast Guard's implementation of these safety zones will be of short duration and designed to minimize the impact on navigable waters. These safety zones will only be enforced immediately before and during the time the swimmers are in the water. Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterway not affected by the safety zone. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this safety zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones in subparagraphs
(a)during the date and time the safety zones are being enforced. These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zones in this proposed rule would be in effect for short periods, and will not preclude vessels from transit outside the zones. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Chief Petty Officer Eldridge McFadden at 617-223-3000. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. *Add temporary § 165.T01-0422 to read as follows: § 165.T01-0422 Safety Zones: Central Massachusetts August Swim Events.*
(a)*Location.* The following swim events include safety zones as described herein:
(1)*Plymouth Rock Triathlon, Plymouth Inner Harbor, Plymouth, MA*
(i)All waters of Plymouth Inner Harbor, from surface to bottom.
(ii)*Effective Date.* This rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on August 31, 2008.
(2)*30th Annual Celebrate the Clean Harbor Swim, Gloucester Harbor, Gloucester, MA*
(i)All waters of Gloucester Harbor, from surface to bottom, within the zone marked by two buoys west of Niles Beach.
(ii)*Effective Date.* This rule will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on August 16, 2008, with a rain date of August 17, 2008 at the same times.
(b)*Definition:* As used in this section, designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer authorized to enforce this regulation on behalf of the Coat Guard Captain of the Port (COTP).
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into or remaining in the safety zones described in paragraph
(a)of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston, or the COTP's designated representative.
(2)Persons desiring to transit within the safety zones established in this section may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 617-223-3008 or via on-scene patrol personnel on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to do so. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. Dated: June 24, 2008. Gail P. Kulisch, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston. [FR Doc. E8-15388 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management for Cape Hatteras National Seashore AGENCY: National Park Service (NPS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Meetings. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth meetings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. (See DATES section.) DATES: The Committee will hold its sixth meeting on September 8-9, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on September 8, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 9. The meetings on both days will be held at the Avon Fire Hall, 40159 Harbor Drive, Avon, North Carolina 27915. The Committee will hold its seventh meeting on October 22-23, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 22, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 23. The meetings on both days will be held at the Hatteras Village Civic Center, 56658 Highway 12, Hatteras, NC 27943. The Committee will hold its eighth meeting on November 14-15, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on November 14, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on November 15. The meetings on both days will be held at the Clarion Hotel, 1601 South Virginia Dare Trail, Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948. The Committee will hold its ninth meeting on December 11-12, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on December 11, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on December 12. The meetings on both days will be held at the Avon Fire Hall, 40159 Harbor Drive, Avon, North Carolina 27915. These, and any subsequent meetings, will be held for the following reason: To work with the National Park Service to assist in potentially developing special regulations for ORV management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The proposed agenda for the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth meetings of the Committee may contain the following items: Approval of Meeting Summary from Last Meeting, Subcommittee and Members' Updates since Last Meeting, Alternatives Discussions, NEPA Update, and Public Comment. However, the Committee may modify its agenda during the course of its work. The meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may provide brief oral/written comments to the Committee during the public comment period of the meetings each day before the lunch break or file written comments with the Park Superintendent. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Murray, Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954,
(252)473-2111, ext. 148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee's function is to assist directly in the development of special regulations for management of off-road vehicles
(ORVs)at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore). Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989, requires certain Federal agencies to publish regulations that provide for administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on which ORV use may be permitted. In response, the NPS published a general regulation at 36 CFR 4.10, which provides that each park that designates routes and areas for ORV use must do so by promulgating a special regulation specific to that park. It also provides that the designation of routes and areas shall comply with Executive Order 11644, and 36 CFR Sec. 1.5 regarding closures. Members of the Committee will negotiate to reach consensus on concepts and language to be used as the basis for a proposed special regulation, to be published by the NPS in the **Federal Register** , governing ORV use at the Seashore. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. Dated: June 9, 2008. Michael B. Murray, Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. [FR Doc. E8-15418 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-X6-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952; FRL-8687-9] Direct Final Approval of Revised Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's State Plan to control air pollutants from large Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC). The Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM)submitted the State Plan on August 24, 2007. The revisions are consistent with Emission Guideline
(EG)amendments promulgated by EPA on May 10, 2006. This approval means that EPA finds that the State Plan amendments meet applicable Clean Air Act
(Act)requirements for large MWCs for which construction commenced on or before September 20, 1994. Once effective, this approval also makes the amended State Plan Federally enforceable. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: nash.carlton@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(312)886-6030. • *Mail:* Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-1151, *sieffert.margaret@epa.gov* or Michele Palmer, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (ML-10C), Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)353-3646, *palmer.michele@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: June 24, 2008. Richard C. Karl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-15347 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 27 [WT Docket Nos. 03-66; 03-67; 02-68; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket No. 00-258; FCC 08-83] Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Reviewing of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission extends the comment and reply comment deadlines. This action is taken in order to provide a limited extension to serve the public interest by allowing parties to discuss the complex issues at stake, develop consensus approaches where possible, and prepare thorough comments while ensuring that the proceeding is expeditiously resolved and to promote the Commission's goal of encouraging deployment of wireless broadband networks over EBS and BRS spectrum, by facilitating a consensus among interested parties on the relevant issues. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 22, 2008. Submit reply comments on or before October 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by DA 08-1523, or by WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586; WT Docket No. 03-67; WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone:
(202)418-0530 or TTY:
(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at
(202)418-0797 or via the Internet to *John.Schauble@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of an *Order* , DA 08-1523, adopted and released by the FCC on June 26, 2008, in WT Docket Nos. 03-66, RM-10586; 03-67, and 02-68, RM-9718. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
(202)488-5300, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at * http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs public/ attachment/DA 08-1523A1doc. * This full text may also be downloaded at: *http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html.* Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at
(202)418-7426, TTY
(202)418-7365, or via e-mail to *bmillin@fcc.gov.* Summary of the Order 1. On March 20, 2008, the Commission released the *Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM), FCC 08-83. In the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM, comments were due on or before July 7, 2008, and reply comments were due on or before August 6, 2008. On May 8, 2008, a summary of the BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 26067, May 8, 2008). 2. On June 13, 2008, National EBS Association (“NEBSA”), formerly known as the National ITFS Association
(NIA)and the Catholic Television Network (“CTN”) filed a motion for extension of time on June 13, 2008, to extend by 75 days the dates for filing comments and reply comments in the proceeding. NEBSA and CTN state that the comment dates “fall in the middle of the summer recess period for virtually all schools, colleges and universities, making it difficult for NEBSA, CTN, EBS licensees and other educators to coordinate their response to the important issues raised in this proceeding.” The Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. supports this request. No party has opposed the request. 3. It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time are not routinely granted pursuant to 47 CFR 1.46(a). Such extensions may be warranted when, among other reasons, the additional time will serve the public interest. In the present instance, we grant NEBSA and CTN's motion for extension of time by extending by 75 days the deadlines to file comments and reply comments in the proceeding. Ordering Clauses 4. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, that the Motion for Extension of Time filed by National EBS Association and the Catholic Television Network on June 13, 2008 is granted, and the time for filing comments in this proceeding is extended to September 22, 2008, and the time for filing reply comments in this proceeding is extended to October 22, 2008. 5. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331. Federal Communications Commission. Joel D. Taubenblatt, Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. [FR Doc. E8-15445 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0080; 92220-1113-0000; C6] RIN 1018-AU97 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Removal of the Concho Water Snake (Nerodia paucimaculata) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Removal of Federally Designated Critical Habitat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the Concho water snake ( *Nerodia paucimaculata* ) has recovered. Therefore, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose to remove (delist) the Concho water snake ( *Nerodia paucimaculata* ) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and accordingly, also remove its federally designated critical habitat. This determination is based on a thorough review of all available information, which indicates that the threats to this species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species has recovered and no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act. The Concho water snake is a reptile endemic to central Texas. It was listed as threatened on September 3, 1986, due to threats of habitat modification and destruction (51 FR 31412). Through implementation of recovery efforts, the Service has determined that this species has been recovered and no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before September 8, 2008. Public hearing requests must be received by August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *U.S. mail or hand-delivery:* Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1018-AU97, Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov.* This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512/490-0057, extension 248; facsimile 512/490-0974. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited Our intent is to use the best available commercial and scientific data as the foundation for all endangered and threatened species classification decisions. Comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule to delist the (species name) are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1)Any threat (or lack thereof) to the Concho water snake;
(2)Additional information on the range, distribution, and location of any additional populations of the Concho water snake;
(3)Information on habitat destruction and/or preservation for the Concho water snake;
(4)Current or planned activities in the species' habitat and the possible impacts to the Concho water snake;
(5)Data on population trends;
(6)Data on the status of Concho water snakes in reservoirs;
(7)Information regarding the sufficiency of planned flows in the Colorado River to maintain habitat for the Concho water snake;
(8)Data on the need for movement of Concho water snakes around large dams to maintain genetic diversity; and
(9)Information pertaining to the design of the required post delisting monitoring. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be submitted to *http://www.regulations.gov* before midnight (Eastern Standard Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section in our final determination. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on *http://www.regulations.gov.* 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. In making a final decision on this proposal, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov,* or by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Public Hearing The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by August 22, 2008. Such requests must be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Background The Concho water snake is endemic to the Colorado and Concho Rivers in central Texas (Tennant 1984, p. 344; Scott *et al.* 1989, p. 373). It occurs on the Colorado River from E.V. Spence Reservoir to Colorado Bend State Park, including Ballinger Municipal Lake and O.H. Ivie Reservoir, and on the Concho River from the City of San Angelo to its confluence with the Colorado River at O.H. Ivie Reservoir. The Concho water snake can be found in rivers and streams, and on artificial shoreline habitat of the three reservoirs. Counties of known occurrence include Brown, Coke, Coleman, Concho, Lampasas, McCulloch, Mills, Runnels, San Saba, and Tom Green. At the time of listing, there were considered to be two subspecies of *Nerodia harteri,* the Concho water snake ( *N. h. paucimaculata* ) and the Brazos water snake ( *N. h. harteri* ). Densmore *et al.* (1992, p. 66) determined the Concho water snake was a distinct species based, in part, on its geographic isolation and fixed differences in genetic markers. Therefore, in 1996 we changed the name in the Federal List from *N. h. paucimaculata* to *N. paucimaculata* (50 CFR 17.11) in accordance with Densmore *et al.* (1992). Information about the Concho water snake's biology and life history can be found in the final listing rule (51 FR 31412-1422), the Concho Water Snake Recovery Plan (Service 1993, pp. 4-5), Werner and Dixon (2000, pp. 209-216), and Campbell (2003). In 1998, the Colorado River Municipal Water District (District) (1998, pp. 8-29) summarized 10 years of data collected on Concho water snake populations, status, and distribution. In 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS)analyzed capture-recapture data from 3 sources:
(1)Mueller (1990, pp. 18-27);
(2)Whiting (1993, Appendix 1); and
(3)the 10 years of District data. However, for a number of reasons, primarily insufficient sampling effort at any single study site and a host of variables, especially environmental variability within a site and among sites, study results have not been robust enough to allow either population or trend estimates with satisfactory precision (Service 2004, p. 23). Additional information, particularly concerning the habitat requirements of the Concho water snake, is discussed under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below. The Concho water snake is characterized by being somewhat smaller than most other *Nerodia.* At maturity, males average about 15 inches
(in)(38.1 centimeters (cm)) snout-vent length (SVL), and females average about 18 in (45.7 cm) SVL, with a maximum reported length of 42 in (106.7 cm) SVL. Hibernation begins in late October to late November, depending upon weather and temperatures (Williams 1969, p. 11). Most adults probably hibernate in the tunnels of small burrowing animals, particularly crayfish, while hibernating juveniles may be more common in the crevices under rocks on gravel bars (Werler and Dixon 2000, pp. 212, 214). Males reach sexual maturity at about 1 year of age but females produce their first litter at 2 or 3 years of age, depending on their reproductive development (Werler and Dixon 2000). The snakes emerge from mid-March to mid-April for the main mating event, which occurs during April and early May, with a lesser event in October (Greene *et al.* 1999, p. 702; Williams 1969, p. 11). Most births occur from late July through September (Dixon *et al.* 1988, p. 15; 1990, p. 13; 1991, pp. 30-31; 1992, p. 28; Greene *et al.* 1999, p. 702). Females produce litter sizes that range from 4 to 29, with a mean of about 11 neonate snakes (Greene *et al.* 1999). Concho water snakes feed almost exclusively on fish (Williams 1969, pp. 9-10; Dixon *et al.* 1988, p. 16; 1989, p. 8; 1990, p. 36; 1992, p. 6; Greene *et al.* 1994, p. 167; Thornton 1990, p. 14), and have been observed feeding both during the day and at night. In riverine habitat and especially among neonates (recently born snakes), minnows (fish in the Cyprinidae family) are the primary food source. Concho water snakes may also opportunistically feed on frogs ( *Rana* and *Acris* spp.) (Greene 1993, p. 20). Previous Federal Action We classified the Concho water snake as threatened on September 3, 1986 (51 FR 31412). The primary reasons for listing were extensive habitat loss and imminent threats to a large portion of its remaining population. Critical habitat was designated on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 27377). In September 1993, we finalized a recovery plan for the Concho water snake (Service 1993). In June 1998, we received a petition to delist the Concho water snake from the District. On August 2, 1999, we published a 90-day petition finding that the petitioner did not present substantial information indicating that delisting the species may be warranted (64 FR 41903). Recovery Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species unless the Director determines that such a plan will not benefit the conservation of the species. The Service completed the Concho Water Snake Recovery Plan in 1993. The Concho Water Snake Recovery Plan outlines recovery criteria to assist in determining when the snake has recovered to the point that the protections afforded by the Act are no longer needed (Service 1993, p. 33). These criteria are:
(1)Adequate instream flows are assured even when the species is delisted.
(2)Viable populations are present in each of the three major reaches (the Colorado River above Freese Dam, Colorado River below Freese Dam, and the Concho River). Here, population is defined as all Concho water snakes in a given area, in this case, each major river reach.
(3)Movement of an adequate number of Concho water snakes is assured to counteract the adverse impacts of population fragmentation. These movements should occur as long as Freese Dam is in place or until such time that the Service determines that Concho water snake populations in the three reaches are viable and “artificial movement” among them is not needed. We used the recovery plan to provide guidance to the Service, State of Texas, and other partners on methods to minimize and reduce the threats to the Concho water snake and to provide measurable criteria that would be used to help determine when the threats to the Concho water snake had been reduced so that it could be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Recovery plans in general are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to provide a guide on how to achieve recovery. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species in all or a significant portion of its range. The main goal is to remove the threats to a species, which may occur without meeting all recovery criteria contained in a recovery plan. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that, overall, the threats have been reduced sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps to delist the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. Achievement of these opportunities may be counted as progress toward recovery in lieu of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn information about the species that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management. Judging the degree of recovery of a species is also an adaptive management process that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. For more information on recovery of the Concho water snake, see the recovery plan at *http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/930927b.pdf* . We caution that research conducted since the recovery plan was completed in 1993 has modified our understanding of habitat requirement of the species. A review of the best scientific and commercial data currently available (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below) indicates that all three criteria in the Concho water snake recovery plan (adequate instream flows even after delisting, viable populations in each of the three major river reaches, and movement of snakes to assure adequate genetic mixing) have been met. Further, recovery of the Concho water snake has been a dynamic process, which has been furthered by the significant amount of new data collected on the biology and ecology of the species by numerous species experts. Since the time of listing and completion of the recovery plan, biologists have discovered that the snakes are able to persist and reproduce in the shorelines of reservoirs and that the snakes have managed to persist in all three population segments, surviving many years of drought. Based on this new information, the analysis below considers the best available data in determining that the Concho water snake may no longer meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing species from listed status. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the “species” is determined, we then evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
(1)The species is extinct;
(2)the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened (as is the case with the (Concho water snake)); and/or
(3)the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error. A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections. A species is “endangered” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a “significant portion of its range” and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a “significant portion of its range.” The word “range” in the phrase “significant portion of its range”
(SPR)refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether the currently listed species, the Concho water snake, should be considered threatened or endangered throughout all of its range. Then we will consider whether there are any portions of the Concho water snake's range in which it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this proposed rule, we consider “foreseeable future” for the Concho water snake to be 20 years. This is a reasonable timeframe for analysis of factors identified that could affect the species in the future and as they relate to Concho water snake biology. The snakes become sexually mature at 2 or 3 years old and reproduce annually (Werner and Dixon 2000, p. 216), with a likely life span rarely exceeding 5 years (Greene *et al.* 1999, p. 707). A 20-year timeframe would encompass about 4 life spans and multiple generations. Twenty years or about four life spans and multiple generations is a reasonable duration for analysis of hydrologic conditions and expected responses by a short lived species such as the Concho water snake. Factors most likely affecting the populations relate to hydrologic cycles and stream flows. Texas water law requirements, including the District's permit (TCEQ permit #3676), requires minimum flows below Ivie Reservoir that are the same as those the Service found in our 2004 Biological Opinion were the minimum needed by the Concho water snake. In 2008 the Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)with the District to provide for the maintenance of minimum flow releases in perpetuity (see the Floodwater Scouring and Instream Flows section under Factor A for further discussion of the TCEQ permit and MOU). Therefore, we have no reason to believe that any significant changes are expected in the next 20 years in reservoir operations or other factors that might affect stream conditions and snake populations. The following analysis examines all five factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the Concho water snake within the foreseeable future. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Habitat and Distribution Concho water snakes are known to occur in rivers, streams, and along the artificial shoreline of reservoirs. These snakes are air-breathing; however, they feed almost exclusively on fish and are, therefore, found only near water sources capable of supporting at least a minimal fish population. Stream and river habitat used by the Concho water snake is primarily associated with riffles (Greene 1993, p. 96; Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 210; Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 13), where the water is usually shallow and the current is of greater velocity than in the connecting pools. Riffles begin when an upper pool overflows at a change in gradient and forms rapids. The stream flows over rock rubble or solid to terraced bedrock substrate through a chute channel that is usually narrower than the streambed. The riffle ends when the rapids enter the next downstream pool. Riffles are believed to be the favored habitat for foraging, with young snakes using shallow parts of riffles and adult snakes using deeper parts of riffles (Greene 1993, pp. 13, 96; Scott *et al.* 1989, pp. 380-381; Williams 1969, p. 8; Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 215; Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 13). Searches on the mainstream rivers (Concho and Colorado) also indicated Concho water snakes were found in the shallow pools between riffles (Williams 1969, p. 8). Dixon *et al.* (1989, p. 16) demonstrated that adult snakes used a variety of cover sites for resting, including exposed bedrock, thick herbaceous vegetation, debris piles, and crayfish burrows. In the reservoirs, Concho water snake habitat is most likely shallow water with minimal wave action and rocks along the shoreline (Scott *et al.* 1989, pp. 379-380; Whiting 1993, p. 112). However, Concho water snakes have also been observed on steep shorelines and around boat houses (Scott *et al.* 1989, p. 379; Whiting 1993, p. 112). Unlike many other species of *Nerodia,* Concho water snakes do not seem to move far from water (Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 208). During Greene's (1993, p. 96) visual and radiotelemetry surveys, all snakes occurred within 33 feet
(ft)(10 meters (m)) of water. Adult and maturing Concho water snakes use a wider range of habitats than do juveniles (Scott *et al.* 1989, pp. 379-381; Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 211; Williams 1969, p. 8). In reservoirs and lakes, juvenile Concho water snakes are generally found in low-gradient, loose-rock shoals adjacent to silt-free cobble. In streams and rivers, juveniles are found in gravel shallows or riffles (Rose 1989, pp. 121-122; Scott *et al.* 1989, p. 379, Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, p. 35). This habitat is likely the best for juvenile snakes to successfully prey on small fish because the rocky shallows concentrate prey and are inaccessible to large predatory fish. The exposed rocky shoals act as thermal sinks, which may help keep the juvenile snakes warm and maintain a high growth rate (Scott *et al.* 1989, pp. 380-381). Historically the Concho water snake was known to occur in spotty distribution on the mainstem of the Colorado River below E.V. Spence Reservoir near the City of Robert Lee downstream to the F.M. 45 bridge and then not again until further downstream near the City of Bend (Tinkle and Conant 1961, pp. 42-43; Williams 1969, p. 3). On the Concho River and its tributaries, Concho water snakes were historically known from Spring Creek, Dove Creek, and the South Concho River, all upstream of the Twin Buttes Reservoir, and on the mainstem of the Concho River downstream from San Angelo to the confluence with the Colorado River (Marr 1944, pp. 486-487; Tinkle and Conant 1961, pp. 42-43). By the time the Concho water snake was federally listed, it had been extirpated from the tributaries above the City of San Angelo (Flury and Maxwell 1981, p. 31), and surveys had never located snakes in lakes or reservoirs (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, pp. 17, 34). At the time of listing, the range of the snake included O.C. Fisher, Twin Buttes, and Spence reservoirs and one tributary creek reservoir, Ballinger Municipal Lake. A fifth reservoir, O.H. Ivie (formerly known as Stacy), was already planned for construction at the confluence of the Concho and Colorado Rivers and was expected to reduce the range of Concho water snakes by more than 50 percent (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, pp. 31, 35). By 1993, Scott *et al.* (1989, pp. 382, 384), Thornton (1992, pp. 3-16), and Whiting (1993, pp.8, 28, 117-118, 121) determined the Concho water snake's distribution to be about 233 mi (375 km) (Service 1993, p. 9). Analysis for a 2004 amendment to the 1986 Biological Opinion (Service 2004, p. 32) summarized the known distribution of the Concho water snake to be the Colorado River from the confluence of Beals Creek (above Spence Reservoir), depending on reservoir stage, to downstream of Ivie Reservoir to Colorado Bend State Park, and on the Concho River downstream of the City of San Angelo to the confluence with the Colorado River. This is a total of about 280 mi (451 km) of river and about 40 mi (64 km) of reservoir shoreline. While the Concho water snake has been extirpated from some reaches of its historical distribution, mainly upstream of San Angelo (Flury and Maxwell 1981, p. 31), since the time of listing it has been confirmed farther downstream from Ivie Reservoir and upstream from Spence Reservoir (Scott *et al.* 1989, p. 384; and Dixon *et al.* 1988, p. 12; 1990, pp. 50, 62-65; 1991, pp. 60-67; 1992, pp. 84, 87, 96-97). In 2004 and 2005, Drs. Forstner and Dixon surveyed for Concho water snakes across the species' range. One goal of Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 4-5) was to evaluate whether viable Concho water snake populations existed in all three reaches of the Colorado and Concho rivers separated by Ivie Reservoir. To do this, snake localities were surveyed “for evidence of reproduction (one measure of sustainability).” Persistence and reproduction were documented in the Concho River and upstream of Ivie Reservoir in the Colorado River. However, access below Ivie Reservoir was restricted by private property owners, preventing an intense assessment downstream of the impoundment. Regardless of limited access, females that exhibited signs of recently giving birth were collected from accessible areas, which Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 18) considered technically sufficient to demonstrate persistence and reproduction downstream of Ivie Reservior. “Even in the face of landscape scale or ecosystem wide stresses by severely reduced precipitation, increased human uses of instream flows, introduced species, and ever increasing human densities, the Concho water snake remains in the majority of the sites visited and continues to reproduce at those locations (Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 18).” Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 16-18, 20) state that “self sustain[ed], seemingly viable populations in the Concho and Colorado Rivers at the end of a decade of monitoring” occur in the three reaches of the snake's range. Reservoir Inundation At the time of listing, we believed the construction of Ivie Reservoir would have two major impacts that would result in loss of Concho water snake habitat:
(1)above the dam, the rocky shoreline and riffle habitat would be inundated, and
(2)below the dam, normal water flow would be curtailed, and floodwater scouring would be prevented (see the Floodwater Scouring and Instream Flows section below for discussion of below-dam effects). At that time, the Colorado River at the proposed Ivie Reservoir site was believed to support the highest concentration of Concho water snakes (Flurry and Maxwell 1981, pp. 36, 48; 51 FR 31419). Outside of this area, the snake had been found only in isolated occurrences, which indicated a disjunct, fragmented distribution. The snake had not been collected in reservoirs or in the silted in riverine habitat below Spence Reservoir (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, pp. 13, 28). It also had not been found in perennial tributaries except Elm Creek near Ballinger (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, pp. 15, 34). Thus, we believed the inundation of the Ivie Reservoir would result in a substantial loss of habitat for the Concho water snake. As a result of a 1986 formal consultation conducted under section 7 of the Act with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on construction of Freese Dam to form Ivie Reservoir (1986 Biological Opinion), the District agreed to implement conservation measures that included, but were not limited to: Long-term monitoring of the snakes, completing life-history studies, maintaining specific flow regimes from Spence and Ivie reservoirs, creating six artificial riffles below Spence, and transplanting snakes between populations above and below Ivie Reservoir (Service 1986, pp. 12-24). As part of their long-term monitoring plan, District field biologists conducted extensive searches for the Concho water snake beginning in 1987. According to Dixon *et al.* (1988, p. 12; 1990, pp. 50, 62-65; 1991, pp. 60-67; 1992, pp. 84, 87, 96-97), snakes have now been documented within and above Spence Reservoir, downstream of Spence Reservoir in the artificial riffles, at Ballinger Municipal Lake, the old Ballinger Lake, and the connecting channel between the two Ballinger lakes. The snake has also been documented in multiple locations on Elm Creek and two of its tributaries, Bluff Creek and Coyote Creek (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, pp.14-15, 30; and Scott *et al.* 1989, p. 384). Additionally, during the District's 10-year monitoring effort (1987-1997), snakes were regularly found in Spence, Ivie, and Lake Ballinger Reservoirs, a habitat type they were not known to occupy at the time of listing. Concho water snakes have continued to be found in reservoirs. Dixon's (2004, pp. 3-4) surveys in 2004 confirmed that snakes persist in Spence and Ivie Reservoirs, and, while Ballinger Lake had only a small pool of water (2 feet or less) in 2004 and no snakes were found, after rains in 2005 Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 12) confirmed snake presence and reproductive activity within the lake. Whiting (1993, p. 17) stated that rocky shorelines were the single most important component of snake habitat in reservoirs, and that changes in water surface elevation of Spence Reservoir affect the availability of that shoreline habitat (Whiting 1993, p. 13). In discussing Spence Reservoir, Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 17) states that, “there are rocky outcrops, boulder slopes, in limited areas that have been occupied by the snake and the populations have remained there over the past decade.” Because Concho water snakes are now known to be reproducing and persisting in lakes and reservoirs and their current distribution is larger than reported at the time of listing and historically, habitat loss from reservoir inundation is no longer believed to be a significant threat to the long-term survival of the species. Drought In severe drought, as the region has experienced over the last 15 years (TWDB 2006, 1-60, 1-67), the linear extent of dewatered riverine habitats could be large and the length of time without flows could extend for several months or more (Service 2004, p. 51). Decreased flow will likely reduce the amount of available shallow rocky habitats in much of the river. However, Concho water snakes appear able to survive these low flow periods. For example, Elm Creek had experienced a number of extended no flow periods over the 5 years prior to 2004 and then flooded in August 2004. In September 2004, Dixon (2004, p. 11) noted Concho water snakes inhabited the site. Dixon (2004, p. 12) surmised that snakes either moved from the mouth of Elm Creek at the Colorado River (a distance of 4.6 creek mi (7.4 creek km)), or existed in deep pools somewhere within a returnable distance to the site. Another example of snake persistence during dry times was the drying of Ballinger Lake in 2004 and confirmation of reproductive snakes in the lake in 2005 following rains (Dixon 2004, p. 4; Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 15). According to Dixon (2004, p. 9), during long periods of drought, the low-head dams (small private dams, a few feet tall, that create pools upstream and riffle-like areas downstream) within both the Concho and Colorado Rivers form pools that can extend two-thirds of a mile (1 km) or more up river (depending on dam height). The riffles and pools that lie upstream of these low-head dams may not completely dry up because of small springs and creeks nearby. These pools act as refuges for juvenile and adult Concho water snakes when flow ceases (Dixon 2004, p. 9). Concho water snakes have been located in pools behind low-head dams along the Colorado River, and Dixon (2004, p. 9) states that it is reasonable to expect the small pools behind low-head dams on the Concho River act in the same way. Even with the drought, water continues to flow over bedrock in some areas, and snakes have been observed foraging for fish in the diminished flow. The extent of solid bedrock in some of the riffle systems tends to maintain the nature of the riffle and does not allow vegetation to root and collect debris and silt (Dixon 2004, p. 9). Another way the snakes may endure drying conditions is to use deep burrows. Greene (1993, pp. 89, 94) found Concho water snake hibernacula (shelters for hibernating snakes) within 19.7 ft (6 m) of water with a mean depth of 1.7 ft (0.52 m). Hibernacula types included crayfish burrows, rock ledges, debris piles, and concrete low water crossings for adults and loose embankments of rock and soil for juveniles. Dixon (2006, p. 2) stated that during droughts the snakes were possibly in the crayfish burrows, since they may retain moisture. Even in light of the ongoing regional drought (TWDB 2006, pp. 1-60, 1-67), USGS stream gauges have registered four flood events greater than 400 cubic feet per second
(cfs)below Spence Reservoir and six flood events greater than 1,000 cfs below Ivie Reservoir over the last 10 years. While both Dixon (2004, pp. 8-9) and Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 12, 15) document degradation of riffles from siltation, there are still numerous riffles continuing to support Concho water snakes (Dixon 2004, pp. 5-8). The Concho water snake has evolved and adapted for thousands of years through many documented long-term droughts (Forstner *et al.* 2006, pp. 17-19). Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 16, 20) state that “the impacts and future stressors on this taxon by anthropogenic and natural cycles are inevitable,” and “the snake has persisted in an environment for the past several millennia that has seen frighteningly intense periods of drought.” Additionally, while there have never been minimum flows required for the Concho River below San Angelo, there are several smaller dams “up and down the Concho River, [which] act as refugia for Concho water snakes (Dixon 2004, p. 4).” Therefore, because the snakes have survived under long-term drought and low-flow conditions (Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 22), we believe that the threat from drought is not likely to endanger the Concho water snake in the foreseeable future. Floodwater Scouring and Instream Flows As discussed above, at the time of listing, we believed the construction of Ivie Reservoir would curtail normal water flow and prevent floodwater scouring. Without such flooding, riffle habitat is lost as the rocky streambed becomes covered with silt. In their recent survey of the Concho water snake and its habitat, Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 14, 16) found that the lack of flushing flows has allowed silt to settle and cover many of the riffles at historically occupied sites and that several sites have changed from riffles to slow-flowing sandy sections of river, reducing habitat available to these snakes. Sand and silt fill in graveled cobble substrate and provide areas for growth of salt cedar and other vegetation, which further eliminates the rocky-bottomed riffle areas required by Concho water snakes (51 FR 31419; Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, p. 13; Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 15). However, despite some riffle habitat loss and the presence of other system stressors, Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 18) noted that the Concho water snake persisted and continued to reproduce at the majority of the sites they visited. Thus, we believe that the loss of some riffle habitat does not threaten the Concho water snake. Since issuance of the 1986 Biological Opinion and associated minimum flow requirements, stream flows throughout the range of the Concho water snake have declined considerably (Forstner *et al.* 2006, pp. 13-16). According to the Regional Water Plan for Region F of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB 2006, p. 1-6), ranching, irrigated agriculture, and the oil and gas industry have historically dominated the regional economy. The largest water user, about 66 percent of the total demand, is irrigated agriculture (provided mostly by groundwater pumping), and municipal is the next largest water user at almost 22 percent (provided mostly by surface water reservoirs) (TWDB 2006, pp. 1-19, 1-24). Based on an analysis of USGS stream gauges (Service 2004, p. 36), low flows in the rivers in recent years have been exacerbated by low annual rainfall totals throughout the watershed. Stream flows during 1999 to 2003 were substantially lower than the period of record for seven USGS stream gauges analyzed on the Colorado and Concho rivers. Recent flows on the Concho River, where minimum flows have not been required, have been particularly low. Prior to reservoir construction near the City of San Angelo, median annual flow on the Concho River at the San Angelo and Paint Rock gauges was 32 and 26 cfs, respectively, but declined to a median annual flow of 0.2 and 0.1 cfs, respectively, from 1999 to 2003. Discharges on the Colorado River have not ceased since 1986 due partly to minimum flows required by the 1986 Biological Opinion on construction of Ivie Reservoir. However, median annual discharge prior to construction of Ivie Reservoir was 71 cfs and declined to 9 cfs between 1999 and 2003 (Service 2004, pp. 36-37). In July 2004, the USACE reinitiated formal consultation (Consultation Number 2-15-F-2004-0242) with the Service on the District's activities. Prior to completing the consultation, the District indicated through a letter (2004, pp. 1-2), and the USACE concurred via e-mail (2004, p. 1), that an emergency situation existed due to a limited water supply endangering public health and safety to their municipal customers (450,000 people). The ongoing drought and implementation of the conditions in the 1986 Biological Opinion were given as the basis for this emergency. During the emergency, the District was allowed to cease releasing minimum flows, while formal consultation was ongoing. An amended biological opinion (2004 Biological Opinion) was completed in December 2004. Shortly thereafter, the District and the USACE determined the emergency had ended and the requirements of the amended Biological Opinion went into effect (Service 2004, pp. 1, 3). The main component of the 2004 Biological Opinion was a reduction in minimum flow requirements (Service 2004, pp. 11-12). The new flow requirements included, to the extent there is inflow into Spence Reservoir, that the District will maintain a minimum flow in the Colorado River downstream of not less than 4.0 cfs (0.11 cms) during April through September and 1.5 cfs (0.04 cms) during the months of October through March. While the reduced minimum flows outlined in the 2004 Biological Opinion will have an impact on the aquatic habitat conditions in the Colorado River, those impacts will be ameliorated to some degree by the nature of the intervening watersheds that drain each of these stream segments, since both the Colorado and Concho rivers are gaining streams (Service 2004, pp. 50-51). Gaining streams gather water as you progress downstream. This gathering of water is exhibited not only by tributary inflow but also as bank discharge from spring flow that occurs where shallow aquifers interface with the stream. This gaining stream phenomenon is greatly controlled by ambient weather conditions. During periods of long-term drought, the tributaries and springs will cease flowing; however, during normal rainfall periods, these sources of water help to restore and maintain more stable instream flows in the mainstem (Service 2004, p. 50). Additionally, even when releases from dams have ceased, normal seepage from a dam occurs and provides for the formation of pools (large and small) that can provide habitat for the Concho water snake and the fish it preys upon for varying periods of time depending on ambient weather conditions. When dam releases are resumed, the pools (located below dams and up and downstream from spring areas) that may have served as refugial habitat are reconnected by flowing water. If the Concho water snake is delisted, the minimum flow requirements required by the 2004 Biological Opinion will no longer apply. However, in February 2008 the Service entered into a MOU with the District to provide for the maintenance of these minimum flow releases in perpetuity. The purpose of the MOU is for the District to provide assurance that minimum reservoir releases will continue in perpetuity, consistent with the 2004 BO (Service, 2004, pp. 11-12). The releases will be maintained, to the extent there is inflow, if the Concho water snake is removed from the Federal list of threatened species. While this means the District has the authority to further reduce or even terminate flows during times of extremely low inflow, earlier analysis using 10 years of historical data indicated that, based on studies that demonstrate persistence of the snake in the past, such low flows occurring only occasionally and temporarily should not affect the snake's long-term status. The District has implemented every activity requested by the Service in previous biological opinions beginning in 1986. The minimum flows required in the 2004 Biological Opinion have been implemented by the District and those flow requirements were duplicated in the 2008 MOU signed by the District. The District has an excellent track record of carrying out conservation actions to benefit the Concho water snake (Freese and Nichols 2006, Service pp. 42-47). The Service is confident in the District's commitment and ability to carry out the provisions of the 2008 MOU to provide for minimum flows. Even in the absence of the MOU flow requirements, minimal amounts of water and stream flows will still be present at various times of the year in the gaining reaches of the Colorado River and below Spence and Ivie Reservoirs due to: dam leakage/seepage, inflow from creeks and other drainages, and spring activity. In addition to the MOU, and the 2004 Biological Opinion, Texas water law requirements also result in maintenance of instream flow. Texas observes traditional appropriative water rights, which is also known as the “first in time, first in right” rule (See Texas Water Code § 11.027). The state's water policy requires the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)to set, to the extent practicable, minimum instream flows to protect the state's water quality when issuing water rights permits (See Texas Water Code § 11.0235(c)). Furthermore, Texas water law prohibits the owner of stored water from interfering with water rights holders downstream or releasing water that will degrade the water flowing through the stream or stored downstream (Texas Water Code § 297.93). The District's water rights permit (TCEQ permit #3676) requires the District to maintain flows below Ivie Reservoir of 8 cfs from April through September and 2.5 cfs from October through March. Flows must be maintained below both Spence and Ivie reservoirs to ensure water quality and provide for downstream water rights. Flows are mandated and releases from Spence Reservoir are periodically required by the State of Texas to ensure the quality of water entering Ivie Reservoir. Spence Reservoir is known to be high in dissolved solids and chlorides (Service 2004, p. 6), so if flows into Spence Reservoir are low, water quality in the reservoir can become degraded unless flushing flows are released. The District must also ensure that senior water right holders are delivered specific amounts of water from Ivie Reservoir. Therefore, long-term low flow releases or no releases from Spence and Ivie Reservoirs are rare. The District has been able to maintain flows from both Spence and Ivie reservoirs over the long term as evidenced by long-term measures of flows at two gages. Daily median flows in the reach of the Colorado River below Spence Reservoir (as measured at USGS near Ballinger since Spence Reservoir was constructed, 1969-2007) exceeded 4.0 cfs in the summer (April through September) all but 12 days. During the winter (October through March), daily median flows always exceeded 1.5 cfs. Daily median flows in the reach of the Colorado River below Ivie Reservoir (as measured at USGS at Winchell since Ivie Reservoir was constructed, 1990-2007) exceeded 8.0 cfs in the summer (April through September) all but 15 days. During the winter (October through March), daily median flows always exceeded 2.5 cfs. We believe that the District will continue to maintain instream flows in the foreseeable future. While instream flows have decreased, Concho water snakes have continued to be found throughout their range. In addition, as discussed above in the Drought section, Concho water snakes appear to be able to survive low flow situations. Therefore, because the snakes have survived under low-flow conditions, and because some minimal flows will persist throughout parts of the snake's range (Forstner *et al.* 2006, p. 22) due to natural inflows and dam releases by the District, we believe that the Concho water snake is not threatened due to lack of instream flows in the foreseeable future. Vegetation Encroachment Salt cedar (Tamarisk sp.) is a nonnative species that was introduced to the United States in the 1800s from southern Europe or the eastern Mediterranean region (DiTomaso 1998, p. 326). In the watersheds of the Spence and Ivie Reservoirs, these plants are abundant and have been reported to have greatly affected water quality and quantity because they consume large volumes of water and then transport salts from the water to the surfaces of their leaves. When the leaves are dropped in the fall, the salt is concentrated at the soil surface (Freese and Nichols 2006, p. 5.5; DiTomaso 1998, p. 334). In an effort to increase water yield and reduce salt concentrations in Spence and Ivie reservoirs, the District, in cooperation with the Texas Cooperative Extension, the Texas Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB), has initiated a salt cedar control project in the Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes spraying an herbicide to eradicate mass concentrations of salt cedar and then using a leaf beetle for biological control of new plant growth (Freese and Nichols 2006, p. 6.4). This project “is an excellent first step in the recovery of the Upper Colorado River Basin back to many of its [pre-infestation] functions, including native riparian habitat for wildlife and improved habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms,” and is “one of the most crucial options for improving water quality and quantity” (Freese and Nichols 2006, pp. 6.5-6.6). We have no information that the herbicide poses a direct poisoning threat to the Concho water snake. Additionally, control programs for invasive brush species, such as juniper ( *Juniperus* sp.) and mesquite ( *Prosopis* sp.), are also being implemented in the Concho and Upper Colorado River basins to increase water quantity (Freese and Nichols 2006, p. 6.6; TSSWCB 2004, pp. 2-3). The TSSWCB is currently focusing above O.C. Fisher and Twin Buttes reservoirs on the Concho River and to date over 175,000 acres (70,820 hectares) of invasive brush have been treated in these watersheds (TSSWCB 2004, pp. 2-3). The removal and control of salt cedar and other invasive brush from the riparian reaches of the Colorado and Concho rivers helps augment existing stream discharge and also reduces buildup of dissolved solids (salts) in the soils of the riparian zone (Service 2004, p. 56). Additionally, this removal encourages reformation of riffle areas, increases stream flow, and reduces sediment deposition, which improves instream habitat for the Concho water snake and other aquatic species (Freese and Nichols 2006, p. 6.6). Fragmentation At the time of listing, we believed construction of Ivie Reservoir (formed by Freese Dam) would likely segment Concho water snakes into three separate populations and thereby reduce genetic exchange (Scott and Fitzgerald 1985, p. 34). Prior to the snake's listing in 1986, no researchers had documented Concho water snakes traveling over land to circumvent the barriers caused by large dams, and snakes had not been located in reservoirs. Due to this separation, a reasonable and prudent measure in the 1986 Biological Opinion was to transfer snakes annually between the populations separated by the dam. Snakes were transferred in 1995 and again in 2006 (District 1995, p. 1; District 2006, pp. 1-3). Because we now know Ivie Reservoir, which receives flow from both the Concho and Colorado Rivers, to be occupied, we believe it is reasonable to surmise that snakes are capable of genetic interchange between the Concho and Colorado Rivers via the reservoirs' shorelines. The District (1998, p. 14) summarized Concho water snake habitat within Ivie Reservoir and found that although the habitat is not linearly consistent, it does occur throughout the reservoir. Female Concho water snakes produce their first young at 2 or 3 years of age (Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 216). Based on occupancy of reservoirs and moderate generation time, we have a high level of confidence that gene flow occurs between populations. In recent surveys, Forstner *et al.* 2006 (pp. 10-13, 18) found that Concho water snakes were reproducing in the Concho and Colorado Rivers above Ivie Reservoir and in the Colorado River below it; they concluded that the populations in those three river reaches were self sustaining and seemingly viable (Forstner *et al.* 2006, pp. 16-18, 20). The 2008 MOU (mentioned above), Article 4.1 also provides that, in the springtime, the District, in coordination with the Service, should move 5 male snakes from below Spence and Freese dams to above these dams, once every 3 years. Moving snakes will be dependent upon availability of funding for the District. We believe this movement will benefit the snake by enhancing genetic exchange between the three populations. Should funding be unavailable in any particular snake-moving year, every effort will be made to move snakes in the succeeding year. Based on the available data, we do not believe the species is likely to become threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future due to genetic isolation. Pollution and Water Quality At the time of listing, we believed buildup of algae in riffle areas reduced oxygen and nutrients available to populations of fish, the Concho water snake's primary food (51 FR 31419). We were also concerned that the inflow of nutrients into the Concho River in the San Angelo area, along with reduced dilution capability associated with lower flows, created large concentrations of algae in portions of the river (51 FR 31419). A summary of the 1987-1996 fish collections in the Colorado and Concho Rivers, included in the Service's 2004 Biological Opinion (Appendix A, pp. 68-69), suggested that fish populations have persisted despite the presence of algae. Also, no impacts to snakes have been observed or documented as a result of water quality conditions during the ongoing drought (Service 2004, p. 52). Additionally, according to Dixon (2006, p. 2), Concho water snakes have been documented to survive in captivity for as long as 12 months with a reduced food supply. Therefore, we no longer consider algal growth and nutrient enrichment to be significant threats to the snake's survival. The Concho water snake was listed as endangered by the State of Texas in 1984. In 2000, it was removed from the State's list of threatened species (TPWD 2000, p. 3) because TPWD no longer considered it likely to become endangered (64 FR 41903). The Texas State Legislature implemented the Texas Clean Rivers program in 1991. The District has actively participated in the program since that time and monitors surface water quality in the upper Colorado River basin, which includes the distribution of the Concho water snake above Freese Dam. The Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA)has the responsibility for water quality monitoring below Freese Dam. Both of these entities have participated in the Clean Rivers Program since 1991 and have provided a proactive response for ensuring a high level of surface water quality in the Colorado River and its mainstem reservoirs. These programs are ongoing and designed to ensure water quality integrity for all aquatic resources, including the Concho water snake and fish, its primary food source, in the upper basin. As water quality problems are detected, swift responses by the District and LCRA to effect corrective actions through State of Texas regulatory agencies (TCEQ and the Texas Railroad Commission) are completed (Service 2004, pp. 52-53). Additional water quality protections for Concho water snakes in riverine and reservoir habitats will continue indirectly under the Clean Water Act (CWA). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (2006, p. 1), the CWA establishes basic structures for regulating discharges of pollutants into United States waters, protecting water quality for species dependent on rivers and streams for their survival. According to species experts, minimally maintained, “mandated flows below Ivie Reservoir (TCEQ permit #3676) [and] senior water rights below both Spence and Ivie reservoirs” will adequately provide instream flows for the Concho water snake (Forstner *et al.* 2006, p 21), preventing the snake from likely becoming threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future because the snake has persisted under these conditions historically, including the ongoing drought, as discussed earlier in this proposal. Forage Fish Availabilty At the time of listing, we believed that declining flows, inundation, pollution, and other habitat threats would have adverse impacts on riffle-dwelling fish, the principal food of the Concho water snake (Williams 1969, pp. 9-10; Dixon *et al.* 1988, p. 16; 1989, p. 8; 1990, p. 36; 1992, p. 6; Greene *et al.* 1994, p. 167; Thornton 1990, p. 14). While we do not know the full extent of the drought's effects on the local fish populations, we do have information that indicates the snake is able to survive in captivity for up to 12 months with a reduced food supply (Dixon 2006, p. 2), and based on the snake's persistence and reproduction within all three reaches (Forstner *et al.* 2006, pp. 10-13, 18), we believe that the Concho water snake is no longer threatened with endangerment in the foreseeable future as a result of potential threats to local food fish populations. Factor A Summary In conclusion, over the course of 20 years, including the construction of three dams that were anticipated to fragment the distribution of the Concho water snake, a prolonged drought accompanied by extreme low water flows in parts of the snake's range, and concerns about heavy nutrient inflows, surveys have confirmed that the snakes have occupied habitat along the new lakeshores, survived in or quickly reoccupied areas of extreme low flows, and have not been adversely affected by nutrient-related effects. Additionally, habitat restoration efforts such as the removal of salt cedar and other brushy species may be improving instream habitat for the Concho water snake and other aquatic species. We believe that destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Concho water snake habitat or range due to habitat loss, altered instream flows and floodwater scouring, drought, vegetation encroachment, fragmentation, and pollution no longer threaten the Concho water snake with becoming endangered. Forstner (2006 p. 12) cites Soule's 1987 definition that describes the key criteria for a viable population to include the ability of the population to be self sustaining, able to persist over time (a century or longer for the Concho water snake), and the ability to adapt to local conditions and evolutionary pressures. Forstner stated that the criteria of self sustaining, seemingly viable populations in the Concho and Colorado rivers at the end of a decade of monitoring have been met. Recalling the three recovery criteria from the 1993 Concho Water Snake Recovery Plan: Adequate instream flows, viable populations in each of the three major reaches (as indicated by not only the repeated presence of snakes at long-term monitoring sites, but by documented evidence of reproduction as a measure of sustainability), and movement of water snakes to counteract population fragmentation. Forstner's 2006 Final Survey Assessment Report (May 18, 2006 p. 12) concludes that his assessment indicates that two out of three of the criteria have been met. Fortner (2006 p. 13) then states that his assessment did not address the final instream flow criterion, yet concludes that “in addition to the mandated flows below Ivie Reservoir (TCEQ permit #3676), senior water rights below both Spence and Ivie Reservoirs virtually assure maintenance of instream flows simply as a consequence of meeting those water right demands. The assurance of the instream flow criterion can be met without ever considering the flows agreed to by the District in the 2008 MOU. The Service realizes that severe environmental conditions that reduced reservoir releases and instream flow have occurred in the past and will occur in the future, and we are confident that the District will continue to implement all appropriate conservation actions, including providing the flows outlined in the 2008 MOU. Furthermore, we believe that the District will continue to comply with its TCEQ water rights permit, which mandates flow releases from Ivie Reservoir. Since the listing of the Concho water snake in 1986, the District has an impeccable track record of providing flows, moving snakes, and facilitating/conducting research and monitoring to conserve the species. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes At the time of listing, Concho water snakes were known to sometimes be captured or killed by recreationists (51 FR 31420). The effect of this activity on Concho water snake populations was and still is believed to be minimal. However, instances of Concho and Brazos water snakes being killed have been reported in both populated and unpopulated areas. For example, Brazos water snakes have been crushed under stones at the water's edge by people walking on the banks and shot by small caliber firearms, and fishermen have commented on their success in removing the “water moccasins” from the river (Forstner *et al.* 2006, pp. 18-19). At one of the historically most productive localities for Brazos water snakes (a closely related species occurring in an adjacent drainage), Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 18) found no snakes in 2 years of searching. They noted dozens to hundreds of campers at the site each year. According to Dixon (2006, p. 2), there is not as much recreation occurring on the Concho and Colorado Rivers, where the Concho water snake occurs, as there is on the Brazos River. We are unaware of any plans to increase recreational opportunities in the Colorado and Concho Rivers to increase recreational use. Therefore, we believe that impacts from recreationists will continue to be less in the foreseeable future in the areas occupied by Concho water snakes. While some limited killing of snakes is likely still occurring, there is no evidence indicating that these mortalities are affecting the species on a rangewide or population level. Therefore, we find that mortality from this factor is not likely to cause the species to become threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. C. Disease or Predation At the time of listing, no problems of disease or predation on Concho water snakes were known to exist (51 FR 31420). While currently no disease problems are known, predators on Concho water snakes have been identified. As is true for most snakes, predation is considered a major natural source of mortality for Concho water snakes (Werler and Dixon 2000, p. 215). Predators documented to prey on Concho water snakes include kingsnakes ( *Lampropeltis getula* ), coachwhip snakes ( *Masticophis flagellum* ), racers ( *Coluber constrictor* ), raccoons ( *Procyon lotor* ), and great blue herons ( *Ardea herodias* ) (Greene 1993, p. 102; Dixon *et al.* 1988, p. 18; Williams 1969, p. 15). Raptors such as hawks ( *Buteo spp.* ) and falcons ( *Falco sp p.* ) are also known to predate upon snakes (Steenhof and Kochert 1988, p. 42). Predatory fish include bass ( *Micropterus salmoides* ) and channel catfish ( *Ictaclurus punctatus* ) (McGrew 1963, pp. 178-179; Jordan and Arrington 2001, 158). Predation of Concho water snakes clearly is occurring; however, all of these predators are native to this region and the snakes have persisted in the face of such predation both historically and during the last 20 years during periods of dam construction and drought. Thus, we believe that mortality from predation is not likely to cause them to become threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Due to the Texas Clean Rivers program, other Texas water law requirements, and the 2008 MOU between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the ASACE, both discussed earlier under Factor A, we believe that inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms does not constitute an ongoing threat to the Concho water snake. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence We are unaware of any other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the Concho water snake at this time. Conclusion of the Five-Factor Analysis As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat factors to assess whether the Concho water snake is threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When considering the listing status of the species, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then the species is listed in its entirety. For instance, if the threats on a species are acting only on a portion of its range, but they are at such a large scale that they place the entire species in danger of extinction, we would list the entire species. Since the time of listing, it has been shown that:
(1)Concho water snakes can survive lower flows than previously thought necessary for their survival;
(2)mandated flows, downstream senior water rights, and the 2008 MOU between the District and the Service virtually assure maintenance of adequate instream flows;
(3)viable populations of Concho water snakes exist in all three reaches of the species' range;
(4)the snake uses the shoreline of reservoirs;
(5)snakes may not need to be transferred between populations in order to prevent genetic isolation, although the 2008 MOU provides for them to be moved; and
(6)it persists, reproduces, and remains viable throughout its range. In addition, the removal of salt cedar and other invasive brushy species is restoring riparian habitat, small riffles, and water quality for the Concho water snake. Application of the Results of the Five Factor Analysis to the Recovery Plan's Criteria The 1993 Recovery Plan described maintenance of adequate instream flows (Recovery Criterion 1) to maintain both the quantity and quality of Concho water snake habitat so that occupied habitat would continue to support viable populations of the species. At the time the recovery plan was completed, adequate instream flow rates were based on the constituent elements identified in the 1989 critical habitat designation (54 FR 27382) and the reasonable and prudent alternatives identified in the 1986 Biological Opinion for the construction of O.H. Ivie Reservior. However, those requirements changed as the following new information became available:
(1)Lower flow rates support the snake population;
(2)Information on the snake's habitat indicates that they are more of a generalist and do not depend on the previously accepted narrow habitat requirements; and
(3)Adequate flow to maintain the snake's habitat and the snake population is provided by a variety of sources in addition to the flow required by the 2004 Biological Opinion (and subsequently required in a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)). As discussed above, in 2004, we revised the biological opinion and determined that lower flow rates were adequate to support riverine habitat for the snake. This was based on new information from numerous studies funded by the District in the 1990s that greatly added to our knowledge of the biology of the snake and its habitat. Monitoring of the snake population indicated that the population was sustained by the lesser flows required in the 2004 Biological Opinion (Forstner 2006, p. 12). It is now known that the Concho water snake is more of a habitat opportunist than originally believed (Dixon 2004). In addition to riverine habitat, the snake is known to use areas above and below low head dams, pools created by the dams, man-made lakes, naturally occurring pools in the river, and tributaries, as Concho water snake has been found in Elm Creek and two of its tributaries. Further analysis by Forstner *et al.* (2006, p. 16) concluded that Concho water snakes can survive in habitats with lower flows than previously thought. While riverine habitat is important for the conservation of the snake, the need to maintain continuous flows at levels previously required were determined to no longer be necessary to provide adequate habitat for snakes. The flows described in the Recovery Plan and the specific flows included in the 1989 critical habitat designation were based on the best scientific information at that time; however, subsequent information provided by Forstner, Dixon, and Thornton indicated that the snake survived, reproduced, and maintained population viability with less stream flow. In response to that new information, the Service required lower stream flows in the 2004 Biological Opinion and based that decision on the continued population viability of the water snake (including snake abundance and reproductive success). This was further confirmed by the Fortner *et al.* 2006 report. In order to maintain riverine habitats in the Colorado River, we entered into a MOU in 2008 to ensure that the District will operate Colorado River reservoirs to provide adequate instream flows if the species were delisted, consistent with the 2004 Biological Opinion (see Factor A section above for more information). In addition to the MOU, the District also maintains flows below Spence and Ivie reservoirs to ensure water quality and provide for downstream water rights. Flows are mandated and releases from Spence Reservoir are periodically required by the State of Texas to ensure the quality of water entering Ivie Reservoir. Spence Reservoir is known to be high in dissolved solids and chlorides (Service 2004, p. 6), which results in period releases of water from Spence Reservoir to maintain its water quality. The District must also ensure that senior water right holders are delivered specific amounts of water from Ivie Reservoir. Therefore, long term low flow releases or no releases from Spence and Ivie Reservoirs are not common practices unless an emergency situation occurs. The Recovery Plan also required maintaining viable populations of the snake (Recovery Criterion 2). Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 18, 20) reviewed the past population data collected on the snake as well as conducted field surveys in 2005 and 2006. Based on the snakes' persistence and reproduction throughout its range Forstner *et al.* (2006, pp. 18, 20) concluded that seemingly viable populations of Concho water snakes exist in all three reaches of the species' range. A re-analysis of Concho water snake monitoring data collected from 1987 to 1996 attempted to evaluated the population dynamics of the species and assess the long-term viability (Whiting *et al.* 2008, pp. 438-439). The results, however, were inconclusive due to uncertainties in the various models used and the inability to account for snake movements from the database used in the analysis (Whiting *et al.* 2008, p. 443). The study stated that snakes continued to persist even in drought-prone areas with hydrologically dynamic systems (Whiting *et al.* 2008, p. 443). Although we lack adequate data on population size and viability, we have used data on range, persistence, and breeding activity as surrogates. The Recovery Plan also discussed the movement of Concho water snakes to counteract adverse impacts of population fragmentation and prescribed the movement of four snakes (two of each sex) every five years in a specific pattern above and below Ivie Reservoir (Recovery Criterion 3). The 2004 Biological Opinion discussed population fragmentation (Service 2004, p. 52) and changed the specific requirement for snake movements to five male water snakes above and below both the Robert Lee and Freese Dams once every three years. The Service believes that these movements are sufficient to maintain genetic heterogeneity between the separated populations. The 2008 MOU requires the same movements of snakes by the District even after the species is delisted. The Service based its belief and change in snake movement requirements on information available from monitoring and capture and release data after the preparation of the Recovery Plan. As a result of the new information discussed above, it is our belief that the Recovery Plan's criteria for recovery of the species have been met. Significant Portion of the Range Analysis Having determined that the Concho water snake no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range that are in danger of extinction or are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range’ ” (U.S. DOI 2007). We have summarized our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying statutory language below. A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and is important to the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the species. The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that
(i)The portions may be significant and
(ii)the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient in some cases for the Service to address the significance question first, and in others the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is threatened or endangered there; conversely, if the Service determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. The terms “resiliency,” “redundancy,” and “representation” are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of the range. Resiliency of a species allows the species to recover from periodic disturbance. A species will likely be more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the environmental variability within the range of the species. It is likely that the larger size of a population will help contribute to the viability of the species. Thus, a portion of the range of a species may make a meaningful contribution to the resiliency of the species if the area is relatively large and contains particularly high-quality habitat or if its location or characteristics make it less susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the range. When evaluating whether or how a portion of the range contributes to resiliency of the species, it may help to evaluate the historical value of the portion and how frequently the portion is used by the species. In addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons—for instance, it may contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the conservation of the species. Adequate representation insures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements. Applying the process described above for determining whether a species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we next addressed whether any portions of the range of the Concho water snake warranted further consideration. We concluded through the five-factor analysis, in particular Factor A that the existing or potential threats are consistent throughout its range, and there is no portion of the range where one or more threats is geographically concentrated. We believe that there are no small geographic areas where localized threats still exist. Because the low level of threats to the species is essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion warrants further consideration. In summary, Concho water snakes can survive lower flows than previously thought necessary for their survival; mandated flows and downstream senior water rights virtually assure maintenance of instream flows; viable populations of Concho water snakes exist in all three reaches of the species' range. Based on the snake's use of reservoirs, persistence, reproduction, and viability throughout its range, we have determined that none of the existing or potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are likely to cause the Concho water snake to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We believe the Concho water snake no longer requires the protection of the Act, and, therefore, we are proposing to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Effects of This Proposed Rule If made final, this rule would revise 50 CFR 17.11
(h)to remove the Concho water snake from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with us to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Concho water snake. Critical habitat was designated for the Concho water snake on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 27377). If finalized, this rule would also revise 50 CFR 17.95(x) to remove the critical habitat designation. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a)Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b)Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c)Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d)Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues. Post-Delisting Monitoring Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Service to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have recovered and been removed from the lists of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants (50 CFR 17.11, 17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring
(PDM)is to verify that the species remains secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the protections of the Act. We are to make prompt use of the emergency listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any recovered species. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation, post-delisting. The Service is developing a draft PDM plan in cooperation with the District and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. We intend to publish a notice of availability of the draft plan in the **Federal Register** , and solicit public comments on that plan, prior to finalizing this proposed rule. All public comments on the draft PDM will be considered and incorporated into the final PDM plan as appropriate. The final PDM plan and any future revisions will be posted on our Endangered Species Program's national Web page ( *http://endangered.fws.gov* ) and on the Austin Ecological Services Field Office Web page ( *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/* ). Peer Review In accordance with our joint policy published in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our proposed rule is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the **Federal Register** and will invite them to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to delist the Concho water snake. We will consider all comments and information received during the comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal. Clarity of the Rule Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1)Are the requirements in this proposed rule clearly stated?
(2)Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity?
(3)Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
(5)Is the description of the proposed rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the document?
(6)What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any written comments about how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You also may e-mail the comments to this address: *Exsec@ios.goi.gov.* Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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. National Environmental Policy Act We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authors The primary authors of this document are staff located at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. § 17.11 [Amended] 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry “Snake, Concho water” under “REPTILES” from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. § 17.95 [Amended] 3. Amend section 17.95(c) by removing the critical habitat entry for “Concho water snake, *Nerodia paucimaculata.* ” Dated: June 26, 2008. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-15133 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 73 131 Tuesday, July 8, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Departmental Administration; Public Hearing on BioPreferred Voluntary Labeling Program AGENCY: Departmental Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)will hold a public meeting for interested stakeholders to provide an open forum to solicit feedback on the establishment of the BioPreferred voluntary labeling program. This program will allow USDA to authorize manufacturers and vendors of qualifying biobased products to use a “USDA Certified Biobased Product” label. DATES: The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 22, 2008, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Building, Jefferson Auditorium, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Pre-registration for this meeting is not required. However, for security purposes and to facilitate a smooth entry into a Federal facility, attendees may provide their names in advance as spelled on government issued identification via e-mail to *biopreferred@usda.gov.* Additionally, attendees are encouraged to gain entry into the building at Wing 7 on the corner of 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., and will be required to present government issued identification. Those unable to attend the public meeting in person may participate via an audio bridge by calling 1
(800)857-5233, verbal pass code “Town Hall.” For technical assistance, call
(202)720-8560. All callers using the above pass code will be placed in “listen-only” mode during the presentation of information. Participants using the audio bridge may verbally join the “Question and answer” portion of the meeting, by pressing *1 on a touch-tone telephone or by e-mailing questions or comments during the meeting to *biopreferred@usda.gov.* Written comments may be submitted through Friday, August 1, 2008, to *biopreferred@usda.gov.* Copies of the meeting agenda may be viewed at *http://greening.usda.gov* or by contacting Mrs. Shana Love at the postal address, e-mail address, or phone listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Shana Love, Departmental Administration, Room 209-A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103; telephone
(202)205-4008; fax
(202)720-2191; e-mail *biopreferred@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) (Pub. L. 107-171) established a program for the procurement of biobased products by Federal agencies and a voluntary program for labeling of biobased products. USDA refers to the program for the Federal procurement of biobased products and the voluntary program for labeling of biobased products, collectively, as the BioPreferred Program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) continues and expands provisions related to the BioPreferred Program. Under the voluntary labeling program, the Department will authorize manufacturers and vendors of biobased products to use the label “USDA Certified Biobased Product.” In establishing the voluntary labeling program, USDA must identify criteria for determining which products may qualify to receive the label and specific requirements for how the label can be used. USDA has one primary objective in establishing the voluntary labeling program: To encourage the purchase of biobased products. USDA believes that products carrying the label will become readily recognizable as biobased products, distinct from those that do not carry the label. Further, as the program matures and the label is used over time, consumers will recognize that products carrying the label meet certain criteria that set them apart from other biobased products. In establishing the voluntary labeling program, USDA is seeking information from interested stakeholders in the following areas: 1. Who can apply for the label. USDA is considering allowing both manufacturers and vendors of biobased products to apply for use of the label for their products. USDA is interested in comments on whether it is appropriate to include vendors as an entity eligible to apply the label, as some of the requirements associated with approval for use of the label will require information generally only available to the manufacturer. However, vendors may have more incentive to sell products carrying the label than the product manufacturer. USDA thus believes allowing vendors to apply for the label could further promote biobased products. 2. Applicable minimum biobased contents required for products to receive label certification. USDA is considering allowing labeling for three categories of products:
(a)Products within one or more designated biobased items within the BioPreferred Program;
(b)products within non-designated items that are not mature market products; and
(c)products not eligible for designation because of market maturity. For the latter two categories, where no minimum content has previously been designated, USDA is considering requiring a 50 percent minimum biobased content for use of the label. USDA is also considering a process to allow a manufacturer, vendor, or trade association to seek an “alternative minimum biobased content” for products within categories
(b)and
(c)above, if they believe that the 50 percent minimum biobased content is not appropriate for their product(s). As part of seeking the alternative content levels, certain analysis and information, such as identifying similar biobased products and their manufacturers, would likely be required. While the specific analysis required will be determined on a case-by-case basis, USDA anticipates that each analysis will be similar to the process USDA uses to set minimum biobased contents under the preferred procurement program. The public meeting discussion in part will address
(a)the 50 percent applicable minimum biobased contents that products within these two categories must meet in order to be eligible for use of the label and
(b)the procedure under which an applicant can request alternative applicable minimum biobased content (that is, an applicable minimum biobased content other than 50 percent). 3. Testing procedures. USDA is seeking comment on where required testing procedures for determining and validating biobased content and the life-cycle costs and environmental and human health effects of the labeled products [as determined by the Building Environmental and Economic Sustainability
(BEES)or American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)analyses] are performed. USDA is considering permitting these tests to be performed by either a qualified third-party testing entity or by the manufacturer or vendor whose testing facilities are ASTM or International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)compliant. Additionally, USDA is considering requiring that if the manufacturer or vendor chose to perform the tests that they be practitioners certified by a professional body, such as the American Center for Lifecycle Analysis. 4. Label content. USDA is seeking comment on what information should be included on the label, such as a statement identifying the biobased content of the product, whether the label applies to the product, its packaging, or both, and use of the word “BioPreferred” in the label. a. Biobased Content. USDA is considering requiring that the biobased content of the product be included on the label. USDA believes that including the biobased content of the product on the label will provide all consumers and purchasers of biobased products additional information that will further the purchase of such products. b. Biobased Product Statement. It may also be important to identify for the consumer that the label applies to either the product or the packaging or both. Therefore, USDA is considering that the label include the appropriate biobased product statement(s) to make this clear. USDA is seeking comment on whether the biobased product statement or similar statements are needed. USDA is considering that the biobased product statement be integrated into the actual label that would be applied to the product or its packaging. USDA is also seeking comment and suggestion on how to clearly demonstrate the applicability of the label on the product, packaging, or in some other fashion. c. Other possible label content. USDA in also considering the possible advantages and disadvantages of requiring additional information on the label. For example, information on product performance and/or on the life-cycle costs and environmental and human health effects of the labeled products (as determined by the BEES or ASTM analyses). The primary advantage of providing additional information on the label is to further educate purchasers about the environmental and health attributes of the biobased products they choose to purchase. However, because the results of the BEES and ASTM analyses are not available for non-labeled products and because they are only comparable between products within the same designated item or grouping of products, the labels could be misleading to purchasers. Also, the amount of space that would be needed for a legible presentation of this information could be a serious drawback for many small products (for example, household cleaners, hair care products, lip care products). The public meeting in part will address the value of providing additional information on the label, what types of information should be included, and how it should be presented. Consideration should also be given to the fact that some of this additional information may be made available on the BioPreferred Program Web site. d. Identifying products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. USDA is proposing to include the word “BioPreferred” on the label to identify those labeled products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. USDA is seeking comments on other options that can be used to identify products that are also eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program. For example, one alternative USDA considered was requiring the use of a separate label that would simply say “BioPreferred.” Another alternative USDA considered was to require manufacturers to indicate in the product's literature that the product is eligible for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program rather than requiring such information on the label itself. Dated: July 1, 2008. Boyd K. Rutherford, Assistant Secretary for Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15411 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-93-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southwestern Region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and Oklahoma: Proposed Surface Management of Natural Gas Resource Development on Jicarilla Ranger District, Carson National Forest, Rio Arriba County, NM; Additional Filings AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service published a notice of intent (69 FR 59881-59883, October 6, 2004) to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)for a proposed forest plan amendment for surface management of gas leasing and development on the Jicarilla Ranger District, Carson National Forest. In addition, the proposal includes a leasing analysis for unleased acres on the Jicarilla Ranger District. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)published a notice of availability
(NOA)for the draft EIS in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 2007 (72 FR 54900). The end of the comment period presented in the NOA was incorrect and subsequently rectified in an amended notice (72 FR 9521, March 2, 2007). A corrected notice of intent was published in the **Federal Register** on May 15, 2007 (72 FR 27282) changing the estimated filing date for the final EIS from early summer 2005 to fall 2007. *Revised Dates:* This notice changes the estimated filing date for the final EIS from fall 2007 to mid-late summer September 2008. When completed, EPA will publish a NOA of the final EIS in the **Federal Register** . *Corrected Unleased Acres:* The draft EIS included a leasing analysis for approximately 3,800 unleased acres on the Jicarilla Ranger District. This notice corrects the number of unleased acres analyzed in the final EIS to approximately 5,000 acres. *Change in Responsible Official:* In addition, this notice changes the official responsible for the EIS and subsequent record of decision from Forest Supervisor Martin D. Chavez, Jr. to Acting Forest Supervisor Erin Connelly, Carson National Forest. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Kuykendall, Forest Environmental Coordinator, Carson National Forest, at
(575)758-6212. Dated: June 30, 2008. Erin Connelly, Acting Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest. [FR Doc. E8-15463 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meetings AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold a public information meeting on beach access routes during its regularly scheduled July meeting of the Board. The regular business meetings shall take place in Arlington, Virginia, Monday through Wednesday, July 21-23, 2008, at the times and location noted below. DATES: The schedule of events is as follows: Monday, July 21, 2008 10-Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee. Noon-1:30 p.m. Presentation on Air Carrier Access Act Regulations. 1:30-2:30 Technical Programs Committee. 2:30-4 Budget Committee. 4-5:30 Presentation on Architectural Barriers Act Complaint Process. Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10-5 Ad Hoc Committee Meetings (Closed to Public). Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9-Noon Information Meeting on Beach Access Routes. Noon-1:30 p.m. Presentation on Airport Common Use Self-Service Machines. 1:30-2:30 Executive Committee. 2:30-3:30 Board Meeting. ADDRESS: All meetings will be held at The Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director,
(202)272-0001 (voice) and
(202)272-0082 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Access Board will hold a public information meeting on beach access routes to gather additional information to assist in developing final accessibility guidelines. The meeting will consist of short presentations and interactive discussions with state and Federal representatives, advocates, environmentalists, and manufacturers of beach access products. In particular, the Board seeks input on the location of beach access routes, their distance, endpoints, coverage area, and frequency, as well as information on factors or conditions that may impact compliance. For additional information regarding this public information meeting, please contact Bill Botten, Accessibility Specialist,
(202)272-0014 (voice);
(202)272-0082 (TTY); or by e-mail: *botten@access-board.gov.* At the Board meeting, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items: • Approval of the draft April 2008 Board Meeting Minutes. • ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines; Federal Agency Updates. • Planning and Evaluation Committee Report. • Technical Programs Committee Report. • Budget Committee Report. • Executive Committee Report. • Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Transportation Vehicles Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Outdoor Developed Areas Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Passenger Vessels Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Emergency Transportable Housing Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Public Rights-of-Way Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Airport Terminal Access Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Accessible Design in Education Ad Hoc Committee Report. • Election Assistance Commission Report. All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants. Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director. [FR Doc. E8-15383 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment. Pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 *et seq.* ), the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. EDA has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment [6/1/08 through 6/30/08] Firm Address Date accepted for filing Products Pacific Die Casting Corporation 5712 NW Fruit Valley Rd., Vancouver, WA 98660 6/16/2008 Aluminum and zinc castings. Also provides the following services: Machining, plating, painting. H.J. Bergeron Pecan Shelling Plant, LLC 1003 False River Rd., New Roads, LA 70760 6/23/2008 Processor of pecans for human consumption. Metalworks Worldwide Inc 3180 Berea Rd., Cleveland, OH 44111 6/24/2008 Stamped parts of steel and aluminum. Wesco Machine Products, Inc S84 W18569 Enterprise, Muskego, WI 53150- 6/24/2008 The company is a manufacturer of precision machined metal parts. E.J. Basler Co 9511 West Ainslie Street, Schiller Park, IL 60176 6/2/2008 The company is a high tolerance manufacturer of machined metal parts and fittings. Miles Enterprises, Inc 400-A Arundel Corporation, Glen Burnie, MD 21060- 6/2/2008 Manufacture custom cabinetry and millwork. Blitz Manufacturing Co. of Indiana 263 America Pl, Jeffersonville, IN 47130 6/9/2008 Polishing clothes for metal and jewelry (cotton). Perras Lumber, Inc 45 Perras Road, Groveton, NH 03582 6/9/2008 Perras Lumber produces board, ties, cants, grade lumber, pallet stock, pallets, wood chips. Robbins Lumber, Inc PO Box 9, Searsmont, ME 04973 6/3/2008 Articles produced by Robbins Lumber include fingerjoint blocks, glued panels, saddle racks. Z Becky Brown, Inc 18 Tallawood Lane, Elgin, SC 29045 6/4/2008 The company manufactures and markets a lady's handbag that is injection molded. Western Technology Services PO Box 2974, Casper, WY 82602 6/3/2008 Manufacturer of truck bodies for special purpose vehicles for mining and construction. Precision Source 40 Maple Avenue, Esmond, RI 02917 6/3/2008 Precision Source manufactures precision parts and quality turned components for Davenports, CNC. Best Metal Fabricators, Inc 3332 West Flower Street, Phoenix, AZ 85017 6/10/2008 Best Metal Fabricators, Inc. specializes in precision machining and sheet metal. Standard Printed Circuits, Inc. 44 South Main Street, Sherburn, NY 13460 6/18/2008 The company manufactures printed circuit boards from 1-14 layers, prototype through medium production. Withers Manufacturing, Inc 13533 S. State Hwy 51, Coweta, OK 74429 6/18/2008 Custom sheet metal fabrication, machining, and assembly of custom machine units. Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Office of Performance Evaluation, Room 7009, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
(10)calendar days following publication of this notice. Please follow the procedures set forth in section 315.9 of EDA's final rule (71 FR 56704) for procedures for requesting a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance. Dated: June 30, 2008. William P. Kittredge, Program Officer for TAA. [FR Doc. E8-15419 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-24-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Action Affecting Export Privileges; Reza Mohammed Tabib and Terri Tabib; Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Reza Mohammed Tabib, a/k/a Reza Tabib or a/ka Re Tabib, 31848 Via Del Paso, Winchester, CA 92596, Respondent; Tern Tabib, a/k/a Tern Repic, 31848 Via Del Paso, Winchester, CA 92596, Related Person. A. Denial of Export Privileges of Reza Mohammed Tabib On May 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Reza Mohammed Tabib, a/k/a Re Tabib and a/k/a Reza Tabib (“Tabib” or “Reza Tabib”) following a plea of guilty, was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”). Tabib pled guilty to willfully attempting to export and transship from the United States to Iran aircraft parts, including approximately three F-14 maintenance kits, without obtaining from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, a license or written authorization for such export and transshipment. Tabib was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (currently codified at 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (the “Act”) 1 and Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”), 2 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of * * * IEEPA,” for a period not to exceed 10 years from the date of conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(a) and (d). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that BIS's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any BIS licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction. 1 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420. Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the Preident, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137, Aug. 16, 2007), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”). 2 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2008). I have received notice of Tabib's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Tabib to make a written submission to the Bureau of Industry and Security as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. Having received no submission from Tabib and, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, I have decided to deny Tabib's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Tabib's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Tabib had an interest at the time of his conviction. B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related Person Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the Director of BIS's Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, may take action to name persons related to a Respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business in order to prevent evasion of a denial order. Tern Tabib, a/k/a Tern Repic is Reza Tabib's wife and business partner. Tern Tabib pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 in connection with the attempted export by Reza Tabib of F-14 aircraft parts to Iran, specifically for willfully failing to file the Shipper's Export Declaration required for the export, and was placed on probation for two years. Tern Tabib is related to Reza Tabib by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business. BIS believes that naming Tern Tabib as a person related to Reza Tabib is necessary to avoid evasion of the denial order against Reza Tabib. As provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, I gave notice to Tern Tabib that her export privileges under the Regulations could be denied for up to 10 years due to her relationship with Reza Tabib and that BIS believes naming her as a person related to Reza Tabib would be necessary to prevent evasion of a denial order imposed against Reza Tabib. In providing such notice, I gave Tern Tabib an opportunity to oppose her addition to the Reza Tabib Denial Order as a related party. Having received no submission from Tern Tabib, I have decided, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, to name Tern Tabib as a Related Person to the Reza Tabib Denial Order, thereby denying her export privileges for five years from the date of Reza Tabib's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which the Related Person had an interest at the time of Reza Tabib's conviction. The five-year denial period will end on May 8, 2012. Accordingly, *it is hereby ordered:* I. Until May 8, 2012, Reza Mohammed Tabib, a/k/a Re Tabib and a/k/a Reza Tabib, 31848 Via Del Paso, Winchester, CA 92596, when acting for or on behalf of Tabib, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees, (“the Denied Person”) and the following person related to the Denied Person as defined by Section 766.23 of the Regulations: Tern Tabib, a/k/a Tern Repic, 31848 Via Del Paso, Winchester, CA 92596, and when acting for or on her behalf, her employees, agents or representatives, (“the Related Person”) (together, the Denied Person and the Related Person are “Persons Subject To This Order”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations. II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Persons Subject To This Order any item subject to the Regulations; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Persons Subject To This Order of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Persons Subject To This Order acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Persons Subject To This Order of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from the Persons Subject To This Order in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. III. In addition to the Related Person named above, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 76623 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to the Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order. IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until May 8, 2012. VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Reza Tabib may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations. VII. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, the Related Person may also file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. VIII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Denied Person and the Related Person. This Order shall be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: June 23, 2008. Eileen M. Albanese, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E8-15306 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-583-816 Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen or respondent) and from Flowline Division of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division), Gerlin, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., (collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (SSBWPFs) from Taiwan. Petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Ta Chen, Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (Liang Feng), Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tru-Flow), Censor International Corporation (Censor), and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP). With regard to Ta Chen, the Department preliminarily determines that sales of SSBWPFs from Taiwan have been sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On September 10, 2007, Tru-Flow, Liang Feng, Censor, and PFP certified that they had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). Based on Tru-Flow's, Liang Feng's, Censor's, and PFP's certified statements, information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)indicating that these companies had no shipments to the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR, and the Department's verification of Liang Feng (as explained below), we hereby give notice that we intend to rescind the review regarding these four companies. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP, see the “Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part” section of this notice. If these preliminary results of review of Ta Chen's sales are adopted in the final results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the constructed export price
(CEP)and the normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Judy Lao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0195 or
(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Period of Review The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. Background On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on SSBWPFs from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 30542 (June 1, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), on June 28, 2007, petitioners requested an antidumping duty administrative review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. On June 28, 2007, Ta Chen requested an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). On July 26, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of this administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation In Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). On August 6, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. On September 10, 2007, the Department received statements from Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP, certifying that they had neither sales nor exports of subject SSBWPFs to the United States during the POR. On September 11, 2007, Ta Chen submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On September 24, 2007, Ta Chen submitted its responses to sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On October 10, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta Chen's section A response, primarily regarding alleged affiliation issues. On October 31, 2007, petitioners submitted comments on Ta Chen's section B and C responses. On November 29, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta Chen's section D response. On December 28, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental section A through D questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen responded to the Department's section A through D supplemental questionnaire on January 28, 2008. On February 4 and 5, 2008, the Department issued additional A through D supplemental questionnaires requesting minor corrections and additional information to respondent's January 28, 2008 submission. On February 7, 2008, respondent submitted the information requested by the Department in its February 4 and 5, 2008, supplemental questionnaires. On February 28, 2008, and March 6, 2008, the Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires. On March 7, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review by 120 days, to not later than June 30, 2007. *See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 12375 (March 7, 2008). Ta Chen submitted a response to the Department's February 28, 2008, questionnaire on March 13, 2008. In addition, on March 13, 2008, respondent submitted a response to petitioners' affiliation allegations made on October 10, 2007. This submission was rejected by the Department on March 27, 2008, for being untimely filed. *See* Memorandum to the File from John Drury entitled “2006-2007 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: E-mail conversation between counsel for Ta Chen and the Department of Commerce” dated March 27, 2008. On March 14, 2008, respondent submitted a response to the Department's March 6, 2008 questionnaire. In addition, on March 14, 2008, the Department issued its verification agenda outlining the general procedures for the Department's verification of Ta Chen's information in Taiwan. On March 18, 2008, respondent submitted a revised section D database to the Department. On March 19, 2008, the Department issued an addendum to its March 14, 2008, verification agenda for Ta Chen. On March 19, 2008, the Department issued verification agendas for Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co. Ltd., and Liang Feng Enterprise, outlining the general procedures for its verifications of those companies in Taiwan. On March 24, 2008, petitioners submitted a letter in response to respondent's March 14, 2008 comments. 1 1 On March 28, 2008, the Department rejected petitioners' March 24, 2008, submission on the basis that it contained new information, and stated that petitioners could revise and resubmit its letter by redacting all new information. Per the Department's request, petitioners re-submitted its March 24, 2008, letter on April 1, 2008. The Department verified Ta Chen's home market sales, partial U.S. sales, and cost information as submitted on the record, in Tainan, Taiwan from March 24, 2008, through April 4, 2008. The Department verified information regarding Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co. Ltd., and Liang Feng Enterprise on April 1, 2008. *See* Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (Ta Chen Verification Report), June 10, 2008, and Verification of the Sales Questionnaire Response of Liang Feng Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (Liang Feng Verification Report). On March 25, 2008, Ta Chen submitted its minor corrections presented at verification. On April 4, 2008, the Department issued Ta Chen a verification agenda outlining the general procedures for verification of its sales made through its U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International (TCI). The Department verified TCI's U.S. sales from April 14, 2008, through April 17, 2008, in Long Beach, California. On April 14, 2008, Ta Chen submitted a response to petitioners' April 1, 2008, submission. On April 21, 2008, Ta Chen submitted its minor corrections presented at its U.S. verification. On May 8, 2008, Ta Chen submitted corrections to its minor correction presented at its U.S. verification, as requested by the Department. On June 12, 2008, the Department received comments from petitioners regarding Ta Chen's selling activities and the Department's findings regarding Ta Chen's selling activities in the home and U.S. markets. On June 18, 2008, both petitioners and respondent filed comments regarding the Department's verification reports. On June 20, 2008, respondent filed comments in response to petitioners' June 12, 2008, comments. Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. *See, e.g.* , Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 71 FR 27676-78 (May 12, 2006); *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006). On September 10, 2007, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP, and Censor each submitted letters on the record certifying that their firms had no sales, entries, or exports of SSBWPFs to the United States during the POR. To confirm their statements, the Department conducted a CBP data inquiry and determined that there were no identifiable entries of SSBWPFs during the POR manufactured or exported by Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP or Censor. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager from Judy Lao, Analyst: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. No Shipments Inquiry dated May 29, 2008. Based on the Department's verification of Liang Feng on April 1, 2008, the Department preliminarily determines that Liang Feng's certification of no shipments is correct. *See* the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review with respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP and Censor. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system:
(1)corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used;
(2)contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented;
(3)high temperatures are present;
(4)extreme low temperatures are present; and
(5)high pressures are contained within the system. SSBWPFs come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, and caps. The edges of finished SSBWPFs are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from the order. The SSBWPFs subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the review is dispositive. SSBWPFs manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order. Affiliation Petitioners claim that Ta Chen and its U.S. subsidiary, Ta Chen International (TCI), have several related parties that were not disclosed in its financial statements. Therefore, petitioners contend that Ta Chen's and TCI's financial statements (and thus its underlying accounting records) should not be relied upon for the purposes of these preliminary results. For the preliminary results, we have determined that the evidence on the record does not warrant a finding that the Department should disregard Ta Chen's or TCI's financial statements. With respect to petitioners' argument that Ta Chen withheld from the Department the identities of a significant number of companies documented as Ta Chen affiliates, but not acknowledged as such by Ta Chen, the Department addressed this issue in the most recently completed antidumping duty administrative review for this order. *See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan* , 73 FR 1202 (January 7, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, ( *Ta Chen* 05-06). In addressing the issues of affiliation raised by petitioners, the Department noted that on May 30, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT)issued a decision and remand with respect to a number of identical issues raised by petitioners for the 2002-2003 administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. *See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Consol. Court No. 05-00094, Slip Op. 07-87 (CIT May 30, 2007) ( *Ta Chen v. United States* 2007). Based on the remand decision in *Ta Chen v. United States* 2007, the Department undertook an exhaustive review of Ta Chen's affiliated parties, and determined that Ta Chen had been a cooperative respondent and had accurately reported its affiliated parties as defined under section 771(33) of the Act (or 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)). * See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States * , Consol. Court No. 05-00094, Slip Op. 07-87 (CIT May 30, 2007), October 2, 2007. On September 11, 2007, Ta Chen provided its response to the Department's section A antidumping duty questionnaire and reported a number of affiliated parties. *See* Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response dated September 11, 2007, at pages 7—12. In a supplemental questionnaire response, Ta Chen stated that it had reported all affiliated parties. *See* Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response dated January 28, 2008, at page 9. Based on an analysis of the information on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Ta Chen's reported affiliates, and the relationships between Ta Chen and the reported affiliates, have not changed since the Department's analysis in Ta Chen 05-06. Additionally, the Department notes that in *Alloy Piping Products, Inc. v. United States* , Ct. No. 06-00454, Slip Op. 08-30 (CIT March 13, 2008), the CIT held that because “the language of the Act and the regulations restrict antidumping reviews to cases where the foreign producer or affiliated parties deal in the subject merchandise, Commerce need not make a finding of affiliation for each company that does not actually sell the subject merchandise” *Id* . at 10. Based on the decisions of the CIT, and the analysis of the evidence on the record, the Department preliminarily determines that Ta Chen has been a cooperative respondent with respect to the issue of reporting affiliated parties, and that Ta Chen accurately reported its affiliated parties as defined under section 771(33) of the Act. Product Comparisons For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSBWPFs sold in the United States, we considered all SSBWPFs covered by the scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR to be “foreign like products,” in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by Ta Chen, as follows: specification, seam, grade, size and schedule. The record shows that Ta Chen both purchased from and entered into tolling arrangements with unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of SSBWPFs. We have preliminarily determined that Ta Chen is the sole exporter of the SSBWPFs under review, as the record evidence does not indicate that these manufacturers had knowledge that the purchased SSBWPFs would be exported to the United States. *See* Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (June 30, 2008). Therefore, knowledge that the SSBWPFs would also be sold to the United States cannot be imputed to those unaffiliated manufacturers. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(h). Section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines “foreign like product” to be “{t}he subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same country by the same person as, that merchandise.” Thus, consistent with the Department's past practice in reviews under this order, for products that Ta Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted the matching of products to products purchased by Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home market. *See, e.g.* , Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 72 FR 35970 (July 2, 2007) and *Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part* , 71 FR 39663 (July 13, 2006). For those products which Ta Chen cannot identify with certainty from which producers the merchandise was purchased, the Department has applied adverse facts available. *See* the “Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available” section below. Date of Sale The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish “a different date {that} better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. *Id* . In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be used as the date of sale for its sales in the home market and to the United States. *See* Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response at 20-22 (Sept. 11, 2007). For home market
(HM)sales, the Department examined whether the date Ta Chen issued its *pro forma* invoice or its actual invoice best reflects the date of sale. Based upon our review of the record evidence, we have preliminarily determined that actual invoice date should be the sale date because the material terms are set on the invoice date, and can potentially be changed up until the point of invoice date. This methodology is consistent with the practice in all the previous reviews of this proceeding. *See* Ta Chen's section B through D questionnaire response at B8-B9 and C9-C-10 (September 24, 2007). For U.S. sales, Ta Chen reported only constructed export price
(CEP)sales, and we used the invoice date for sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer as changes to the terms of the sale may occur up to the issuance of the invoice. *See* Verification of the Sales Responses of Ta Chen International, United States Affiliate of Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen”) in the Antidumping Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (TCI Verification Report), June 10, 2008, at page 10. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSBWPFs by Ta Chen to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared CEP to NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product. Constructed Export Price Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter “ Consistent with recent past reviews, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's sales based on CEP because the sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer was made by Ta Chen's U.S. affiliate, TCI. See the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Ta Chen has two channels of distribution for U.S. sales: 1) Ta Chen ships the merchandise to TCI for inventory in its warehouses and subsequent resale to unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and 2) Ta Chen ships the merchandise directly to TCI's U.S. customer (indent sales). The Department finds that both stock and indent sales qualify as CEP sales because the original sale is between TCI and the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all communication with the U.S. customer, from customer order to receipt of payment, and incurs the risk of non-payment. In addition, TCI handles customer complaints concerning issues such as product quality, specifications, delivery, and product returns. TCI is also responsible for payment of the ocean freight for all U.S. sales, while Ta Chen arranges the ocean freight logistics and paperwork. *See* Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response at A18 (Sept. 11, 2006). We calculated CEP based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we added billing adjustments and deducted discounts. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted direct and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs incurred by TCI for stock sales, related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, containerization expense, Taiwan harbor construction tax, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. Finally, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. As Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. *See* Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 2 and Exhibit 1 (September 11, 2007). 2. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production
(COP)in the prior administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. *See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part* , 72 FR 35972-35973 (July 2, 2007), and *Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan* , 73 FR 1202 (January 7, 2008). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen. A. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financial expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. *See* the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. In our COP analysis, we relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses, and adjusted the reported direct materials costs based on our findings at verification. *See* below. B. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and were not at prices that permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. C. Results of COP Test In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities, as defined by section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we appropriately disregarded below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 3. Price-to-Price Comparisons As there were sales at prices above the COP for all product comparisons, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We deducted credit expenses and added interest revenue. In addition, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Application of Facts Available Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department finds that the use of facts available (“FA”) is appropriate with regard to Ta Chen's reported costs of production. The Department preliminarily finds that Ta Chen significantly under-reported the direct material costs used in the cost of production of the subject merchandise. Furthermore, pursuant section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the application of FA is warranted with regard to Ta Chen's sales in the United States of merchandise purchased from other Taiwanese producers because the Department is unable to identify with certainty the actual producer of the merchandise being sold by Ta Chen. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. We find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application of FA is warranted for the calculation of Ta Chen's costs of production because Ta Chen provided information that could not be fully verified. Furthermore, we find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application of FA is warranted because Ta Chen failed to identify with certainty the manufacturer for certain sales of SSBWPFs made by Ta Chen. A. Cost of Production/Direct Materials Adjustment Ta Chen purchases stainless steel coils to produce pipe, which it in turn processes into pipe fittings. *See* Ta Chen's sections B—D questionnaire response, September 27, 2007, at D-5. At verification, the Department found that Ta Chen's per-unit pipe fittings direct material cost ( *i.e.* , the standard cost of pipe, plus the variance) inexplicably rose much more slowly throughout the POR than the price of Ta Chen's raw material input for making pipes ( *i.e.* , stainless steel coils). *See* Ta Chen Verification Report, June 10, 2008, Section XIV at page 72. Normally, if raw material prices increase significantly then either the standard cost must increase significantly or the variance between actual and standard cost must increase significantly. For Ta Chen, neither of these increases appears to have occurred, with the result being that for some months the recorded cost of the input stainless steel coils used to produce the pipe exceeded Ta Chen's reported direct materials costs for fittings. Company officials could not explain this discrepancy at verification. *Id* . Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that an adjustment is necessary to correct for this unexplained difference. To adjust for the under-reporting of direct materials costs, the Department estimated direct material cost for the two sample products reviewed at verification ( *i.e.* , one 304L and one 316L), yielded for pipe making and fittings fabrication. To adjust for the apparent underestimation of reported pipe costs, the Department first calculated estimated pipe input
(coil)costs by using per kilogram
(kg)coil purchase costs (for which data are available on the record for both coil grades, 304L and 316L, for all months of the POR). *See* Ta Chen's March 13, 2008, supplemental response at Exhibit 4th Supp.-18. The Department applied the per-kg. coil costs to the total reported weight of the pieces produced, by month. *See* Ta Chen Verification Report at Verification Exhibits 4 and 19. The Department then added to the estimated pipe input
(coil)costs additional adjustments to account for yield loss from coil to pipe, yield loss from pipe to fittings, and pipe conversion costs. These additional adjustments were based upon the company's reported standard costs. *Id* . We compared the results of our calculation to Ta Chen's reported costs to calculate the adjustment to cost. We then applied these adjusted costs to Ta Chen's reported costs for merchandise produced and toll-produced by others for Ta Chen. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we determine that these adjustments are an appropriate application of FA to direct materials cost. Ta Chen could not provide an explanation of the discrepancies between the reported per-unit costs and other verified information, the Department determines that the application of FA is warranted. Also, we preliminarily conclude that Ta Chen did not fail to act to the best of its ability because the underlying data verified and Ta Chen provided the information that highlighted the apparent discrepancies. As such, the Department determines that adverse FA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is not warranted in this instance. Therefore as noted above, we are adjusting the costs of production. *See* the Analysis Memo for a more detailed discussion of the calculations. B. Identity of Manufacturers Ta Chen not only manufactures subject fittings, but it also purchases completed fittings and has some toll processing performed by other unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers. *See* Ta Chen's section A questionnaire response dated September 11, 2007, at page 30. Ta Chen indicated that it reported itself ( *i.e.* , Ta Chen) as the manufacturer for sales observations which it produced or which were toll processed. In instances where the sale was made of fittings purchased from a supplier, Ta Chen stated that it reported the supplier as the manufacturer in its sales databases. However, during verification the Department found that Ta Chen had reported the other manufacturers' names in the manufacturing field for the sales database for all fittings that were purchased as well as toll processed. The Department also found that Ta Chen was apparently unable to distinguish between the manufacturers that toll process from those that supply certain types of subject fittings that Ta Chen re-sells, once the fittings that are toll-produced or purchased enter into Ta Chen's inventory system. *See* Ta Chen Verification Report at Section V, page 24. For all fittings, the cost test and the DIFMER data must be manufacturer specific. The cost database does not distinguish control numbers (CONNUMs) by supplier. However, we can distinguish between toll processed and purchased merchandise by CONNUM in the cost database as the Department found at verification that CONNUMs of merchandise purchased by Ta Chen were unique. *See* Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response, March 13, 2008, at page 4. For the sales database, as stated above, for merchandise not identified as manufactured by Ta Chen, we are unable to distinguish between sales of toll processed merchandise from sales of merchandise purchased from other producers. During verification, Ta Chen stated that in the normal course of business, it does not keep track of each specific manufacturer for each sale of fittings once the fittings enter into Ta Chen's inventory system. Ta Chen stated that the manufacturer identity of fittings that are toll processed and supplied is lost within its inventory before they are sold. *See* Ta Chen Verification Report at Section V, page 24. Ta Chen claims that companies that toll process and supply it fittings are not knowledgeable of Ta Chen's final customer or destination for the fittings. Although Ta Chen was able to identify which products it had purchased or toll processed during the POR for purposes of reporting its cost database, it is allegedly unable to link those with its sales database because of the loss of the manufacturer's identity that takes place when the subject fittings are commingled in inventory. In examining the issue of manufacturer further at verification, Ta Chen informed the Department that for merchandise supplied by other manufacturers, “when the fittings were supplied to Ta Chen Taiwan it knew which supplier had supplied the merchandise, but once the fittings entered into its inventory it could no longer distinguish” who the manufacturer was. Id. With respect to the toll-processed merchandise, Ta Chen stated that “when the fittings were shipped to Ta Chen Taiwan it knew which subcontractor had toll processed the fittings, but once the fittings entered into its inventory it could no longer distinguish which subcontractor had done the toll processing.” *Id* . In response to questions about merchandise quality issues, Ta Chen stated that its “quality control department checks the merchandise. The company stated that if there are problems with the merchandise, the subcontractor or supplier would have to return to pick it up. The company said that in theory a mill test certificate would be provided to Ta Chen Taiwan by the subcontractors and suppliers.” *Id* . at 26. Finally, the Department examined the system by which Ta Chen records purchases of fittings, and noted that there are codes available to denote the manufacturer from which fittings are purchased. *Id* . at 26-27. The Department preliminarily determines, contrary to Ta Chen's statements at verification, that it is able to segregate those sales which were toll-produced on behalf of Ta Chen from those sales of merchandise which were purchased from unrelated manufacturers. *See* the Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 2008, for further information. Additionally, while Ta Chen did not report the actual manufacturer of certain sales of SSBWPFs as requested by the Department, claiming that it was unable to distinguish from which producer it purchased certain fittings, the Department found at verification that Ta Chen was aware of the individual manufacturer of fittings both for quality assurance purposes and at least before the merchandise entered into Ta Chen's inventory system. As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, *inter alia* , if an interested party or any other person withholds information that has been requested by the Department or significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. We preliminarily find that the use of FA is warranted in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because Ta Chen did not specifically identify the manufacturer of the subject merchandise, as requested by the Department in its antidumping duty questionnaire and in its March 6, 2008, supplemental questionnaire. Consistent with Section 782(d) of the Act, the Department requested clarification of Ta Chen's reporting of the manufacturers' identities with respect to the purchased fittings. However, Ta Chen reported that it “is unable to discern which company manufactured the fitting.” *See* Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response dated March 13, 2008, at page 1. At verification, Ta Chen again stated to Department officials that it was unable to discern which company manufactured the purchased fittings. *See* Ta Chen Verification Report, Section V at pages 23—28. *See also* TCI Verification Report, Section IV at page 8 and Section IX.A.30 at page 21. Additionally, at verification, the Department found that Ta Chen had not reported toll-processed merchandise as being produced by Ta Chen, as it had previously indicated to the Department. *See* Ta Chen's section B-D response, September 24, 2007, at pages B-31 and C-53 and 54. Instead, Ta Chen had reported the toll-producer as the manufacturer, rather than Ta Chen. The Department also found that the toll-producers were the same companies from which Ta Chen also purchased fittings. *Id* . at 24. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we determine that an application of FA to those sales identified as purchased from other manufacturers is appropriate. Despite Ta Chen's claims to the contrary, the Department found numerous instances where it appears that Ta Chen could segregate toll-produced and purchased material according to manufacturer. However, because Ta Chen has stated that it is unable segregate merchandise once it enters into its accounting system, the Department will apply FA to those sales of merchandise purchased from other sources. The Department intends to examine this issue more closely for the final results of this review. Therefore the Department will apply as FA to those sales identified as sales of purchased merchandise the average rate calculated for all merchandise produced or toll processed by Ta Chen. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine different selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). Ta Chen reported two channels of distribution in the home market: unaffiliated distributors and end-users. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution and organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We found that Ta Chen's level of selling functions to its home market customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. *See* Ta Chen's section A Resp., at 16-25 (Sept. 11, 2007); *see also* Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire response, at 6 and Exhibit 8, (January 28, 2008). Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT in the comparison market. For CEP sales, we examined the selling activities related to each of the selling functions between Ta Chen and its U.S. affiliate, TCI. Ta Chen reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP sales made through TCI, *i.e.* , through one channel of distribution, and claimed that there is only one LOT. We examined the four selling functions and found that Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to TCI are performed regardless of whether shipments are going to TCI or directly to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we preliminary determine that Ta Chen's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We then compared the selling functions Ta Chen provided in the home market LOT with the selling functions provided to the U.S. LOT. In the home market, Ta Chen provides significant selling functions related to the sales process and marketing support, warranty and technical service, inventory maintenance, and some technical services in the comparison market, which it does not for the U.S. LOT. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOT is at a more advanced level than Ta Chen's U.S. LOT. However, since we have preliminarily determined that there is only one LOT in the home market, we are unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. Because we have preliminarily determined that NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, and we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have applied a CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The Department intends to examine this issue fully for the final results in light of comments by parties on this issue. Currency Conversion For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the producer/exporter listed below for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, to be as follows: Weighted-Average Margin Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd 2.93% Disclosure and Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and, 3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of participants; and, 3) a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific ad valorem rate for merchandise exported by Ta Chen which is subject to this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Ta Chen or by any of the companies for which we are rescinding this review and for which Ta Chen or each no-shipment respondent did not know its merchandise would be exported by another company to the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results of review;
(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 51.01 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers 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. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15475 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-831 Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined that six timely requests for new shipper reviews
(NSRs)of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. For three of the six NSRs which the Department is initiating, the period of review
(POR)is November 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008. For the remaining three NSRs where the shipments entered after the POR, the Department is initiating and extending the POR by forty days, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050 or
(202)482-0197, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC was published in the **Federal Register** on November 16, 1994. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994) ( *Order* ). 1 On May 22, May 23, May 27, and May 30, 2008, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received six timely requests for new shipper reviews
(NSR)from Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd (Hejia), Weifang Chenglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Chenglong), Jinxiang Tianheng Trade Co., Ltd (Tianheng), Juye Homestead Fruits and Vegetables Co., Ltd. (Juye Homestead), Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry & Commerce, Ltd. (Chengwu), and Shandong Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Zhengyang), respectively. Five companies certified that they are both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which the requests for NSRs were based. One company, Chenglong, certified that it is the exporter of Jianxiang County Jichao Farm Business Co., Ltd. (Jichao), producer of the subject merchandise. 1 Therefore, a request for a NSR based on the semi-annual anniversary month, May, was due to the Department by the final day of May 2008. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang certified that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any PRC exporter or producer who exported fresh garlic to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang, also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Jichao, the producer of the subject merchandise for Chenglong during the POR, certified that it did not export to the United States during the POI, and has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang first shipped fresh garlic for export to the United States and the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of their first shipment; 2 and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. 2 Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang made no subsequent shipments to the United States. The Department conducted CBP database queries and confirmed that Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also confirmed by examining the CBP data that such entries were made during the NSR POR, or shortly thereafter. *See* Memorandum to File: New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, Placing CBP data on the record, dated concurrently with this notice. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (POR), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations. The preamble to the Department's regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, and that under “appropriate” circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27319-27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, for three of the exporters requesting a NSR, the sales were made during the POR but the shipments entered shortly after the end of the POR. The exporters provided documentation showing the date of entry following the end of the POR. It is appropriate for the Department to extend the POR by forty days. The Department does not find that this delay would prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department's regulations. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR for their shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC. *See* Memorandum to File: Initiation of AD New Shipper Review: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, and the attached New Shipper Initiation Checklists, dated concurrently with this notice. The POR for the three NSRs with shipments which entered during the POR is November 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the NSR of the remaining three exporters and producers discussed above will be November 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008. The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of fresh garlic from the PRC manufactured and/or exported by Hejia, Chenglong, Tianheng, Juye Homestead, Chengwu, and Zhengyang must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: June 30, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15465 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Colorado, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L.106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of its order. *Docket Number: 08-016.* Applicant: University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. Instrument: Three-Channel Digital Radio Vector Field Sensor (RVFS). Manufacturer: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Sweden. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 30377, May 27, 2008. Reasons: The instrument has a capability to work with dipole antennas of two different lengths (1 m and 3 m) and a capability to oversample the output I&Q data. These specifications enable the instrument to operate in both mobile-mount and stationary conditions which is essential to the intended use. *Docket Number: 08-017.* Applicant: City College of the City University of New York, New York, NY 10031. Instrument: Ultrabroadband Ti:Sapphire Laser Model Rainbow-DFG. Manufacturer: Femtolasers, Inc., Austria. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 30377, May 27, 2008. Reasons: The instrument can generate optical pulses of less than 7 femtoseconds which is fundamental to the intended use. The amplifier system will be coupled with a 6 femtosecond laser and streak camera system to provide high spatial, high temporal and high spectral resolution for characterization, tunneling and carrier/phonon dynamics studies for nanoscale semiconductor quantum structures and devices. Dated: July 1, 2008. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15450 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-570-926 Sodium Nitrite From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has reached a final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of sodium nitrite from the People's Republic of China (PRC). On April 11, 2008, we issued the Preliminary Determination, *see Sodium Nitrite From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 73 FR 19816 (April 11, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). Because neither the Government of the People's Republic of China
(GOC)nor the two mandatory company respondents participated in this investigation, the Department relied on facts available and applied adverse inferences in reaching the *Preliminary Determination* . The Department assigned a countervailable subsidy rate to each program under investigation using rates calculated in *Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum (CFS from the PRC)* . We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . No interested party submitted comments regarding the *Preliminary Determination* . Since the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department has reached affirmative final countervailing duty determinations in several investigations of products from the PRC. We have used the rates calculated in these intervening final determinations to revise the countervailable subsidy rates for certain programs. For information on the countervailable subsidy rates, *see* the “Final Determination” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert or Paul Matino, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3586 or
(202)482-4146, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The following events have occurred since the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008. On April 14, 2008, petitioner (General Chemical LLC) submitted a letter, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. On April 28, 2008, the Department aligned the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. *See Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination* , 73 FR 22920 (April 28, 2008). Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2006. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. For purposes of the scope of this investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading, CAS registry number or CAS name, which are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission
(ITC)is required to determine pursuant to section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a United States industry. On January 14, 2008, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports from the PRC of subject merchandise. *See Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Preliminary)* , 73 FR 2278, (January 14, 2008). Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences Section 776 of the Act, governs the use of facts available and adverse facts available. Section 776(a) provides that if an interested party or any other person
(1)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information by deadlines or in the form and manner requested;
(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(4)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available in reaching its determination. The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the Department may resort to facts available. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party an opportunity to remedy or to explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable timelines, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) of the Act if:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. *See Statement of Administrative Action* accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, 889-90
(SAA)at 870. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department based the CVD rates for the two mandatory company respondents, Shanxi Jiaocheng Hongxing Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Jiaocheng) and Tianjin Soda Plant, together with its subsidiary company, Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Pan Bohai International Trading Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Soda Plant) on facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act because they did not respond to the Department's countervailing duty questionnaire. Furthermore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department determined that an adverse inference was warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act because Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant did not respond to the Department's questionnaire and therefore did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in the investigation. Preliminary Determination at 19817-18. Neither the GOC nor Shanxi Jiaocheng or Tianjin Soda Plant have provided any information or argument that would warrant a reconsideration of the Department's *Preliminary Determination* that the reliance on facts available and the application of adverse inferences is warranted. Therefore, for purposes of this final determination we are relying on facts available and applying adverse inferences in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any other information placed on the record. The Department has no information on the record of this proceeding from which to select appropriate AFA rates for any of the subject programs, and because this is an investigation, we have no previous segments of the proceeding from which to draw potential AFA rates. In such cases, it is the Department's practice to select, as adverse facts available, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g.* , Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (Pistachios from Iran), 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See SAA* at 870. In choosing the appropriate balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior rate “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As stated in the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department determined that Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant each failed to act to the best of its ability in this investigation; thus, for each program examined, the Department made the adverse inference that each company benefitted from the program, consistent with our practice. *See, e.g.* , Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002). In addition, we stated in the *Preliminary Determination* that our practice is to rely upon the highest calculated program rate for the same program or for a similar type of program. 1 *See e.g.* , Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2 *(CWP from the PRC); CFS from the PRC* at Comment 24; *Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances* , 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 6-8 ( *LWS from the PRC); see also Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation Determination* , 73 FR 35642 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 2 ( *LWRP from the PRC* ). We have selected the adverse facts available rate to apply to each program, for purposes of this final determination, consistent with this practice. 1 The Department's first preference is to use the highest calculated rate for the same program ( *i.e.* identical program). If there is no identical program, then the Department will use the highest calculated rate for a similar program ( *e.g.* tax program to tax program, loan program to loan program). Information from the petition indicates that during the POI, the standard income tax for corporations in China was 30 percent and there is an additional local income tax at the rate of three percent. *See* the November 8, 2007 letter to the Secretary of Commerce, at Exhibit IV-12. To determine the program rate for the 16 alleged income tax programs under which companies receive either a reduction or exemption of income tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant paid no income taxes during the POI. Therefore, the highest possible combined countervailable subsidy for the 16 national, provincial, and local income tax programs subject to this investigation total 33 percent. Thus, we are applying a countervailable rate of 33 percent on an overall basis for the 16 income tax programs ( *i.e.* , the 16 income tax programs combined provided a countervailable subsidy of 33 percent). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to income tax credit or income tax refund programs. For the remaining programs subject to this investigation (including income tax credit and income tax refund programs), we are applying, where applicable, the highest countervailable subsidy rate that was calculated in a prior final countervailing duty determination for a product from the PRC for the same or similar type of program ( *i.e.* , subsidy programs regarding tax refunds or credits, value-added tax (VAT), and government-provided grants and loans). *See CFS from the PRC* at Comment 24 and *LWS from the PRC* at 6-8. Absent a subsidy rate for the same or similar type of program, we are applying the highest countervailable subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed in any prior final countervailing duty determination involving the PRC. 2 *See id* . 2 In applying the highest calculated countervailable subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, we are disregarding the calculated rates for the programs “Hot-Rolled Steel For Less Than Adequate Remuneration” ( *CWP from the PRC* ), and “Government Provision of Inputs for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” ( *LWS from the PR* C), because the industry under investigation in this proceeding cannot use the products for which these rates were calculated. * See Sodium Nitrite From the Federal Republic of Germany And The People's Republic of China: Petition For The Imposition of Antidumping And Countervailing Duties* , (November 8, 2007) Volume I at 32-33. *See also Sodium Nitrite from China and Germany: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-453 and 731-TA-1136-1137 (Preliminary)* , ITC Publication 3979, January 2008 at 8. The Department's decision to not use, as AFA, these program rates is based on the particular facts of this investigation and this particular set of facts may not be applicable or identifiable in another proceeding. For a discussion of the application of the AFA rates for each program determined to be countervailable, *see* Memorandum to the File, *Sodium Nitrite from the PRC; Calculation of Countervailable Subsidy Rates for the Final Determination* , dated concurrently with this notice ( *Sodium Nitrite Calculation Memorandum* ). Attached to this memorandum are copies of *CFS from the PRC, LWS from the PRC, CWP from the PRC, and LWRP from the PRC* , which contain the public information concerning subsidy programs, including the subsidy rates, upon which we are relying as adverse facts available. *See Sodium Nitrite Calculation Memorandum* . Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The *SAA* emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *See SAA* at 869. With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, we note that these rates were calculated in prior final countervailing duty determinations. No information has been presented that calls into question the reliability of these calculated rates that we are applying as AFA. Unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal in considering the relevance of information used to calculate a countervailable subsidy benefit. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will not use it. *See, e.g.* , Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the absence of record evidence concerning these programs due to respondents' decision not to participate in the investigation, the Department has reviewed the information concerning China subsidy programs in this and other cases. For those programs for which the Department has found a program-type match, we find that programs of the same type are relevant to the programs of this case. For the programs for which there is no program-type match, the Department has selected the highest calculated subsidy for any China program from which the respondents could conceivably receive a benefit to use as AFA. The rate is therefore relevant to the respondents in that it is an actual calculated CVD rate for a China program from which the respondents could receive a benefit. No evidence had been presented or obtained which contradicts the reliability or relevance of the secondary information which was information from a prior China CVD investigation. *See Preliminary Determination* at 19819. Due to the lack of participation by the respondents and the resulting lack of record information concerning these programs, the Department has corroborated the rates it selected to the extent practicable. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have assigned a subsidy rate to each of the two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise that were selected as mandatory respondent companies in this CVD investigation. We determine the total net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Producer/Exporter Subsidy Rate Shanxi Jiaocheng Hongxing Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Jiaocheng) 169.01% Tianjin Soda Plant Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Pan Bohai International Trading Co., Ltd. (Tianjin Soda Plant) 169.01% All Others 169.01% With respect to the all others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rate established for the two mandatory respondents is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record upon which we could determine an all others rate. As a result, we have used the AFA rate assigned for Shanxi Jiaocheng and Tianjin Soda Plant as the all others rate. This method is consistent with the Department's past practice. *See e.g.* Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 2001); *see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Steel Wire Strand From India* , 68 FR 68356, 68357 (December 8, 2003). Suspension of Liquidation and Cash Deposit Requirements In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 11, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits at the rates shown above on all entries of the subject merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this final determination. If the ITC issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order under section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury to, threat of material injury to, or material retardation of, the domestic industry does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305(a)(3) of the Department's regulations. Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15479 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-925) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that sodium nitrite from the People's Republic of China
(PRC)is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV)as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We made no changes to the preliminary dumping margin in this investigation. The final dumping margin for this investigation is listed in the “Final Determination Margin” section below. The period covered by this investigation is April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4162 and
(202)482-3627, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 23, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the notice of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty investigation of sodium nitrite from the PRC. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China* , 73 FR 21906 (April 23, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). With respect to the Department's invitation to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* , on May 23, 2008, General Chemical LLC (the petitioner) submitted a case brief. No other party submitted case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received In its May 23, 2008, case brief, the petitioner argues that the Department should base its final determination, like the *Preliminary Determination* , on adverse facts available
(AFA)because the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao Hengyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. (Qingdao) and Hualong Ammonium Nitrate Company Ltd. (Hualong), did not submit responses to the Department's questionnaire. In addition, the petitioner explains that it does not object to the preliminary AFA rate used by the Department (which is the highest margin alleged in the petition, as adjusted by the Department at initiation) because it believes the rate is consistent with both the dumping margins alleged in the petition and the dumping margins used for purposes of initiating the investigation. The petitioner notes that the Department's practice is to base an AFA rate on the highest margin in a proceeding and here the highest margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not, evidence showing the margins to be less would have been provided. 1 *See* the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC. 1 *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The petitioner also notes that no party filed separate rate information in this investigation. Given the PRC's status as a non-market economy
(NME)country, and the lack of information on the record rebutting the Department's presumption that all companies in the PRC are subject to government control, the petitioner argues that the rate applied to the PRC-wide entity cannot be lower than the rate applied to Qingdao and Hualong. *See* the May 23, 2008, submission, Sodium Nitrite from China: Case Brief of General Chemical LLC. We agree that the dumping margin in this case should be based on total AFA because the two mandatory respondents, Qingdao and Hualong, failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Moreover, by not responding to the Department's questionnaire, Qingdao and Hualong failed to establish their entitlement to separate rates, and thus they are part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, the AFA rate will be applied to the PRC-wide entity. *See* “The PRC-Wide Rate” section of this notice below for a full discussion of this topic. No Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has made no changes to its *Preliminary Determination* . Separate Rates No party filed separate rates information in this investigation. Therefore, as was the case in the *Preliminary Determination* , we have considered all PRC exporters of subject merchandise to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-Wide Rate Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, or significantly impedes a proceeding, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to use inferences that are adverse to a party if it finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Because, as noted above, Qingdao and Hualong are part of the PRC-wide entity, and they withheld information that is required by the Department to calculate dumping margins, the Department continues to conclude that it is appropriate to base the PRC-wide entity's dumping margin on facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. 2 2 Section 782(d) of the Act is not applicable here because Qingdao and Hualong failed to provide any response to the Department's request for information. Moreover, because Qingdao and Hualong did not respond to our request for information, we continue to find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan* , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (applying total adverse facts available because the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). For the reasons noted in the *Preliminary Determination* , we continue to find that the highest dumping margin from the petition, 190.74 percent, as revised by the Department, is the appropriate AFA rate in this case. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21907-21908. As explained in the *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated this rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21908. Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control, and no company submitted information to rebut that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide rate, to all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. *See* , *e.g.* , *Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption that the export activities of the companies that failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC government). Thus, the PRC-wide rate will apply to all entries of subject merchandise. Final Determination Margin We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2007, through September 30, 2007: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) PRC-Wide Rate 190.74 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that is entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission
(ITC)of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15488 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-428-841 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of sodium nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination of Investigation.” EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482 1766 or
(202)482 3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 23, 2008, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of sodium nitrite from Germany. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany* , 73 FR 21909 (April 23, 2008) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination* . We received case briefs from the petitioner, General Chemical LLC, and the respondent, BASF AG (BASF), on May 23, 2008. The petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on May 28, 2008. No party requested a hearing. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping investigation are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 30, 2008, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in the Decision Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117, of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by this investigation may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0. While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Adverse Facts Available For the final determination, we continue to find that, by failing to respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire, BASF, the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, did not act to the best of its ability in this investigation. Therefore, the use of adverse facts available
(AFA)is warranted for this company under sections 776(a)(2) and
(b)of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21909-21910. As we explained in the *Preliminary Determination* , we selected as the AFA rate the highest margin alleged in the petition, 237.00 percent, as referenced in the notice of initiation. *See Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 73 FR 68563, 68567 (December 5, 2007). Further, as discussed in the *Preliminary Determination* , we corroborated the AFA rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21910-21912, and Comment 1 of the Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice for further discussion. All-Others Rate For the final determination, we have continued to assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the petition in accordance with the Department's current practice. *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21912, and Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice for further discussion. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) BASF AG 237.00 All Others 150.82 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Germany, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1)the rate for the firm listed above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;
(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 150.82 percent. 1 These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 1 This rate was incorrectly stated as 237.00 percent in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of the *Preliminary Determination* . *See Preliminary Determination* , 73 FR at 21912. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission
(ITC)of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum Comments Issue 1: Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for BASF Issue 2: Selection of the All-Others Rate [FR Doc. E8-15458 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI83 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit
(EFP)application submitted by the University of New England
(UNE)and the New England Aquarium
(NEA)contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under this EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast
(NE)Skate Complex and NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue an EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued that would allow two commercial fishing vessels to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. This EFP, which would enable researchers to study the immediate and short-term post-release mortality of skates, would grant exemptions from the regulations as follows: Retaining, possessing, or landing prohibited skate species, and skate possession limits for sampling purposes. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: • Email: *DA8-145@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line “Comments on UNE/NEA skate bycatch mortality EFP.” • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on UNE/NEA skate bycatch mortality EFP, DA8-145.” • Fax:
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bryant, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9244. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An application for an EFP was submitted on June 12, 2008, by Dr. James Sulikowski, from the Marine Science Center of UNE, for a project funded by the NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. The primary goal of this project is to provide data to determine the immediate and short-term survivability of winter, smooth, little, and thorny skates. This research could provide valuable information for future skate management objectives. Results will be provided to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the New England Fishery Management Council. Researchers will also disseminate results to a public audience at the NEA to increase awareness of skate conservation. Since the stocks of these species are at or near overfished biomass thresholds, and winter and little skates are subject to directed fisheries, research on bycatch mortality of these species is needed. In order to conduct this research, the principal investigators have requested an exemption from possessing and handling prohibited skate species. Additionally, an exemption from skate possession restrictions would authorize project investigators to temporarily possess fish for scientific data collection purposes prior to returning all fish to the sea. Two vessels would each conduct 50 trips in conjunction with commercial days-at-sea
(DAS)trips, with one vessel fishing with commercial otter trawl gear and the other fishing with commercial gillnets. Both vessels would use standard commercial gear. Tows would vary in time among 30, 60, and 120 minutes to account for variations in tow duration that occur under normal fishing conditions. Gillnet soak times would vary but not exceed 24 hr. Two fishing trials would be conducted. The first would occur from September through November 2008. The second would occur from March through May 2009. Research would occur in the inshore and offshore waters off of New Hampshire and southern Massachusetts. These areas support the vast majority of skate landings that can also be accessed during normal fishing operations. All fishing would occur as day trips, and no fishing would occur in closed areas or during rolling closures. Only winter, thorny, smooth and little skates would be used for scientific research purposes. Northeast multispecies would be landed and sold, up to the current DAS possession limits. The researchers propose fishing a total of 100 sea days; 50 days fishing with gillnet gear and 50 fishing with trawl gear. In other words, each vessel would fish for 25 days during each of the 2 trials (fall and spring). The objective is to assess at least 300 specimens of each of the 4 skate species per season, for a total 1,200 specimens per season, and 2,400 specimens for the entire project. The researchers plan to stagger trials in order to both deploy and retrieve pens on a given day, thus maximizing the number of trials that can be conducted in the proposed number of sea days. In order to identify possible influences on discard mortality, the following variables would be recorded: Deck-time, season (fall, spring), depth of fishing, air and bottom seawater temperatures, estimated weight of catch, the total length and gender of skates, and handling techniques (e.g., picked or not picked; duration of deck exposure). When catch is hauled aboard, all skates would be tagged with spaghetti tags. Skates would either be immediately placed into a live well by one of the handling methods (without a pick or with a pick) or remain on the deck for 15 and 30 minutes before being transferred to live wells. While in the wells, specimens would be visually assessed. Any specimens that die prior to placement within a net pen would be placed on ice for subsequent necropsy. Viable skates would be placed in experimental holding pens to be submerged and deployed to the seafloor for 72-hour trials. A total of 8 net pens would be used, with 20 to 40 skates in each pen. The modified basic shape would form a three-dimensional hexagon with each of the six rectangular sides measuring 5 ft (height) x 6 ft (length). Two PVC skeletons would be used for the bottom and top of each pen. Six vertical sections 5 feet in height would support the structure. The netting covering the pen would consist of 3 or 4-inch diamond mesh tetra twine. The base of each pen would be filled and weighted down with a heavy composite and would be affixed to the seafloor by 2 or 3 40-pound mushroom anchors to reduce the likelihood of pen rollover. Pens would be maneuvered in the water column using bridles secured to whale-safe swivels connected to a main tag line. Each pen would be marked at the surface with a highflyer and buoy. In order to conduct control trials, UNE proposes to capture a few skates by handlines. If it proves to be unfeasible to capture enough skates by this method to make a statistically robust number of trials, vessels would conduct abbreviated trawls (e.g., 5-minute tows) to obtain minimally stressed controls. The applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 1, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15375 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeal by Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing. SUMMARY: This notice provides information about a public hearing to be held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)in Irvine, California. The hearing involves an administrative appeal filed with the Department of Commerce by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency and its board of directors (TCA). This notice also announces the reopening of the public and Federal agency comment period for the TCA Consistency Appeal, beginning July 21, 2008 and running through August 4, 2008. DATES: NOAA will conduct a public hearing in the TCA Consistency Appeal on July 25, 2008. The hearing will begin at 10:30 a.m. and will continue until 8:30 p.m. Speaker registration begins at 10 a.m. on the day of the hearing. ADDRESSES: The public hearing and speaker registration will be held at the University of California, Irvine, Bren Events Center, 100 Bren Events Center, Irvine, California 92697. Written comments on issues relevant to the Secretary's decision in this appeal may be submitted at the hearing. In addition, from July 21, 2008 to August 4, 2008, comments may be submitted by e-mail to *gcos.comment@noaa.gov* or by mail addressed to Thomas Street at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 15, 2008, TCA filed notice of an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.* , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H. TCA appealed an objection by the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to TCA's proposed construction of an extension to California State Route 241 in northern San Diego and southern Orange Counties, California. Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the Commission's objection if he determines that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that:
(1)The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner;
(2)the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and
(3)no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the state's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. On March 17, 2008, NOAA published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing, among other things, that a public hearing might be held concerning this appeal. The hearing will be held. This notice provides scheduling and procedural information about the hearing. The hearing in this appeal will commence at 10:30 a.m. at the Bren Events Center and will continue throughout the day with afternoon and evening sessions. Intermissions are expected near noon and late in the afternoon (around 4:30 p.m.). Other recesses may be called as necessary. Speakers must register on the day of the hearing, on site, at the Bren Events Center. Registration of speakers will begin at 10 a.m. The order of the speakers will be determined by the NOAA officials administering the hearing. Speakers generally will be recognized in the order in which they register (a first-come-first-served basis), alternating between individuals from the general public and those representing organizations. Specific periods are expected to be set aside during the afternoon and evening sessions for remarks by elected officials. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, speakers from the general public will receive up to three minutes to present their oral comments. Elected officials and individuals representing organizations will receive five minutes to speak. Only one individual may speak on behalf of an organization. Written comments on issues relevant to the Secretary's decision in this appeal may be submitted to NOAA at the hearing by any person in attendance. In addition, written comments may be submitted by e-mail to *gcos.comments@noaa.gov* or by mail addressed to Thomas Street, NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments must be received by August 4, 2008. This hearing is being held to obtain information on issues the Secretary will likely consider in deciding the TCA's appeal. A summary of relevant issues as well as additional background on the appeal appeared in the **Federal Register** notice of March 17, 2008, announcing the appeal, and may be found on the Internet at *http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.com.htm* . This Web site also includes additional information on the hearing, including conduct and decorum that is required, restrictions on the use of cameras and recording equipment and the display of signs and banners in the hearing room, the process by which testimony will be transcribed and made part of the record, and other rules and guidelines. (Please see the set of Frequently Asked Questions regarding the hearing.) Questions concerning the hearing should be directed to Thomas Street, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or Stephanie Campbell, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, 301-713-2967, or *gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov* . Dated: June 2, 2008. Joel La Bissonniere, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services. [Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Assistance.] [FR Doc. E8-15500 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hydrographic Services Review Panel Meeting AGENCY: National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Hydrographic Services Review Panel
(HSRP)was established by the Secretary of Commerce to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, its amendments, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice. *Date and Time:* The public meeting will be held July 29-30, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 29th and 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on July 30th. *Location:* San Francisco, California. Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf, 2500 Mason Street, San Francisco, CA, 94133. The times and agenda topics are subject to change. Refer to the HSRP website listed below for the most current meeting agenda. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain Steven Barnum, NOAA, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA (N/CS), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; Telephone: 301-713-2770, Fax: 301-713-4019; e-mail: *Hydroservices.panel@noaa.gov* or visit the NOAA HSRP Web site at *http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/hsrp.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public and public comment periods will be scheduled at various times throughout the meeting. These comment periods will be part of the final agenda that will be published before the meeting date on the HSRP website listed above. Each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five
(5)minutes. Written comments (at least 30 copies) should be submitted to the DFO by July 16, 2008. Written comments received by the DFO after July 16, 2008, will be distributed to the HSRP, but may not be reviewed before the meeting date. Approximately 25 seats will be available for the public, on a first-come, first-served basis. *Matters To Be Considered:*
(1)Swearing in of new member;
(2)Panel discussion with various stakeholders in the region on use of and interest in NOAA Navigation Services;
(3)Updates on NOAA/California partnership on Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping
(IOCM)project, NOAA's Height Modernization and Print on Demand;
(4)briefing on Climate and the Coasts and Arctic issues; and
(5)public statements. Dated: July 2, 2008. John Potts, Acting, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. [FR Doc. E8-15509 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI58 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction and Operation of Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of issuance of a letter of authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued a letter of authorization
(LOA)to BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.
(BPXA)to take marine mammals incidental to the production of offshore oil and gas at the Northstar development in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. DATES: This Authorization is effective from July 7, 2008, through July 6, 2009. ADDRESSES: The LOA and supporting documentation may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman or Ken Hollingshead
(301)713-2289, or Brad Smith
(907)271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs NMFS to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. Authorization may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) of marine mammals for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations setting forth the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of the offshore oil and gas facility at Northstar were made effective on April 6, 2006 (71 FR 11314, March 7, 2006), and remain in effect until April 6, 2011. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The six species of marine mammals that BP may take in small numbers during construction and operation of the Northstar facility are bowhead whales, gray whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals. Summary of Request On May 27, 2008, NMFS received a request from BPXA for a renewal of an LOA issued on July 6, 2007, for the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to oil production operations at Northstar, under the regulations issued on March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11314). This request (BPXA, 2008) contains information in compliance with 50 CFR 216.209, which updates information provided in BPXA's original application for takings incidental to construction and operations at Northstar. BPXA also submitted the required activity and monitoring report under the 2007-2008 LOA. Summary of Activity and Monitoring Under the 2007-2008 LOA One offshore ice road was built during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season. Helicopters made 135 round trips to Northstar during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season to transport crew and materials to and from the facility and recommended flight corridors and altitude restrictions were maintained. Hagglunds tracked vehicles made 37 round trips between West Dock and Northstar Island, and the hovercraft made 574 round trips during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season. Drilling activities were conducted at two well sites from November 17, 2006, to May 1, 2007. No vibratory or impact pile driving activities took place during the present reporting period. The 2007 repair activities consisted of removing the concrete blocks in areas that had sustained erosion and/or block damage, installing a new layer of filter fabric, installing gravel bags of various sizes to build up and stabilize the subgrade, installing another layer of filter fabric and an overlying layer of geogrid to reduce the susceptibility of the fabric to abrasion, and installing the concrete block armor. Each month, four to seven aerial surveys were conducted to inspect the pipeline for leaks or spills. There were 25 reportable Northstar-related spills during the 2006-2007 ice-covered season and the 2007 open-water season. Material spilled included drilling mud, corrosion inhibitor, sewage, methanol, motor oil, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, lube oil, and propylene glycol. Most of this material remained in contaminant and was recovered. All spilled material was contained and cleaned up. Contaminated snow, ice, and gravel were removed with various types of equipment, hand tools, and absorbents. No clean-up activity was necessary after Northstar flare events during the reporting period. On May 18, 2007, one quart of hydraulic fluid was released from a ditch witch; a portion of this fluid reached Beaufort Sea surface water. Shovels were used to scrape up the contaminated snow and ice from the spill site and sorbents were used to soak up the materials from the water surface. All the contaminated materials were recovered from the ice and water surface, thereby avoiding impact to the environment. During the open-water period, there were 190 helicopter round trips, 347 hovercraft round trips, 40 tug and barge trips, and 137 Alaska Clean Seas Bay-class boat round trips to Northstar. There were an additional three trips by Bay-class boats in association with acoustic monitoring of the bowhead whale migration. Seal observations in 2007 began on May 15 and were conducted almost daily through July 31. Over the standard period of May 15-July 15, a total of three seals were counted during 57 days. This was much less than the total number of observations in 2005 and 2006 over the same period. As in 2005 and 2006, no seals were observed after July 15, when some monitoring continued. Results of seal counts conducted from Northstar Island during the reporting period did not provide evidence, or reason to suspect, that any seals were killed or injured by Northstar-related activities during 2007. No activities were conducted that could have exposed pinnipeds and whales to underwater received levels greater than 190 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)or 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), respectively. Seven Directional Autonomous Seafloor Acoustic Recorders (DASARs) were installed in August, 2007. Five of the devices were deployed at locations 11.4-21.4 km (7.1-13.3 mi) NNE of Northstar Island and recorded low-frequency sounds continuously for approximately 36 days, until October 3. Simultaneously, near-island recordings were obtained from two DASARs placed 410-480 m (1,345-1,575 ft) from Northstar over the same period. In total, 11,780 bowhead whale calls were recorded in approximately 36 days at the four offshore DASAR locations. A total of 10,146 calls, or 282 calls/day, were detected by two of the offshore DASARs combined. The 282 calls/day figure for 2007 is less than those recorded for 2003-2004 but greater than those for 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2006. The much higher call counts in 2007 compared to the two previous years are probably related to the absence of nearshore pack ice during the 2007 season, meaning there were probably more whales closer to shore. Based on boat traffic records, sound emissions associated with Northstar activities in 2007 were probably somewhat higher than in 2006 but lower than in 2001-2003. However, the weather was also considerably windier in 2006, which increases baseline sound levels. BPXA has no evidence that the island *per se* was producing sounds that were different in amplitude or frequency characteristics compared to previous years. Subsistence hunters from Nuiqsut who traveled to Cross Island for the annual bowhead whale hunt did not report any negative effects from Northstar activities on their ability to conduct the hunt. In 2007, Nuiqsut whalers landed three whales. One whale was struck and lost. Authorization BPXA complied with the requirements of the 2007 LOA, and NMFS has determined that the marine mammal take resulting from the 2007 construction and operation activities is within that analyzed in and anticipated by the associated regulations. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a 1-year LOA to BPXA, authorizing the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to oil production operations at the Northstar offshore facility in state and Federal waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 11314, March 7, 2006) and supported by information contained in BPXA's 2007 annual report that the activities described in the LOA will result in the taking of no more than small numbers of bowhead whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, and, possibly California gray whales, bearded seals, and spotted seals and that the total taking will have a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. Dated: July 1, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15473 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI88 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Training Operations Conducted Within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of applications for a letter of authorization (LOA); request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received requests from the U.S. Navy
(Navy)for an authorization for the take of marine mammals incidental to training operations conducted within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex off the coast of North Carolina for the period beginning May 29, 2009 and ending May 28, 2014. Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the applications should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *PR1.0648-XI88@noaa.gov* . NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. Copies of the Navy's application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES ), telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or visiting the internet at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289, ext. 137. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking 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. With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or
(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment]. Summary of Request On June 13, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting an LOA for the take of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins by Level B harassment incidental to the proposed training activities within the Navy's Cherry Point Range Complex over the course of 5 years. These training activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Cherry Point Range Complex geographically encompasses offshore and near-shore operation areas (OPAREAs), instrumented ranges, and special use airspace located along the U.S. Atlantic coast, and is shown in Figure 1 of the Navy's LOA application. Please refer to Table 31 of the LOA application for detailed information of the potential exposures from explosive ordnance (per year) for marine mammals in the proposed Cherry Point Range Complex area. Specified Activities In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorizations for take of marine mammals incidental to conducting training operations within the Cherry Point Range Complex. These training activities consist of surface warfare, mine warfare, amphibious warfare, and vessel movement. A description of each of these training activities within each of the range complexes is provided below: Surface Warfare Surface Warfare
(SUW)supports defense of a geographical area ( *e.g.* , a zone or barrier) in cooperation with surface, subsurface, and air forces. SUW operations detect, localize, and track surface targets, primarily ships. Detected ships are monitored visually and with radar. Operations include identifying surface contacts, engaging with weapons, disengaging, evasion and avoiding attack, including implementation of radio silence and deceptive measures. For the proposed Cherry Point Range Complex training operations, SUW involving the use of explosive ordnance includes air-to-surface Missile Exercises (MISSILEX). The MISSILEX would involve helicopter crews launch missiles at at-sea surface targets with the goal of destroying or disabling the target. MISSILEX (A-S) training in the Cherry Point Range Complex could occur during the day or at night. Mine Warfare/Mine Exercises Mine Warfare
(MIW)includes the strategic, operational, and tactical use of mines and mine countermine measures (MCM). MIW training is divided into
(a)the laying of mines to degrade the enemy's capabilities to wage land, air, and maritime warfare, and
(b)the countering of enemy-laid mines to permit friendly maneuver or use of selected land or sea areas. MIW consists of two unit level operations: airborne mine countermeasures
(AMCM)and mine neutralization. AMCM or Mine Countermeasures Exercises (MCMEX) train forces to detect, identify, classify, mark, avoid, and disable (or verify destruction of) underwater mines (bottom or moored) using a variety of methods including air, surface, sub-surface, and ground assets. The AMCM systems include mine hunting sonar (AQS-24A), influence mine sweeping systems (MK-105 and MK-104), anti-mine ordnance (Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS)), and moored mine sweep system (MK-103). Mine Neutralization operations involve the detection, identification, evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal of underwater Unexploded Ordnance
(UXO)that constitutes a threat to ships or personnel. Mine hunting techniques involve divers, specialized sonar, and unmanned underwater vehicles
(UUVs)to locate and classify the mines and then destroy them using one of two methods: mechanical (explosive cutters) or influence (matching the acoustic, magnetic, or pressure signature of the mine). In addition to the current mine exercises, the Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM) training exercises would begin in the Navy Cherry Point Operating Area as these new systems are introduced into the fleet. The OAMCM systems include mine hunting sonar (AQS-20), influence mine sweeping towed arrays that emulates the magnetic and acoustic signatures of transit platforms, anti-mine ordnance systems, and mine hunting laser that uses a light imaging detecting and ranging (LIDAR) to detect, localize, and classify near-surface moored/floating mines. MIW training using Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD)underwater detonations in the Navy Cherry Point Study Area occur only during daylight hours. Amphibious Warfare Amphibious Warfare
(AMW)involves the utilization of naval firepower and logistics in combination with U.S. Marine Corps landing forces to project military power ashore. AMW encompasses a broad spectrum of operations involving maneuver from the sea to objectives ashore, ranging from shore assaults, boat raids, ship-to-shore maneuver, shore bombardment and other naval fire support, and air strike and close air support training. In the Cherry Point Range Complex, AMW training is limited to Firing Exercises (FIREX). During an FIREX, surface ships use their main battery guns to fire from sea at land targets in support of military forces ashore. On the east coast, the land ranges where FIREX training can take place are limited. Therefore, land masses are simulated during east coast FIREX training using the Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and Simulation System (IMPASS) system, a system of buoys that simulate a land mass. FIREX training using IMPASS in the Cherry Point Range Complex study area occurs only during daylight hours. Vessel Movement Vessel movements are associated with most activities under the training operations in the Cherry Point Range Complex. Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in the Cherry Point study areas varies based on training schedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Ship sizes range from 362 ft (110 m) for a submarine to 1,092 ft (333 m) for an aircraft carrier and speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots. Operations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. These operations are widely dispersed throughout the operation area, which is a vast area encompassing 18,617 nm 2 (an area approximately the size of West Virginia). The Navy logs about 950 total vessel days within the Cherry Point study area during a typical year. Consequently, the density of ships within the study area at any given time is extremely low ( *i.e.* , less than 0.005 ships/nm 2 ). Proposed Monitoring and Mitigation Measures The Navy is developing an Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program
(ICMP)for marine species to assess the effects of training activities on marine species and investigate population trends in marine species distribution and abundance in various range complexes and geographic locations where Navy training occurs. The primary tools available for monitoring include visual observations, acoustic monitoring, photo identification and tagging, and oceanographic and environmental data collection. A list of proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures are described in the application for the proposed training operations. These mitigation measures include personnel training for watchstanders and lookouts in marine mammal monitoring, operating procedures for collision avoidance, specific measures applicable to the mid-Atlantic during North Atlantic right whale migration, and a series of measures for specific at-sea training events including surface-to-surface gunnery, etc. A detailed description of the monitoring and mitigation measures are provided in the applications. Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES ). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's Cherry Point Range Complex request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's training activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization. Dated: July 2, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15472 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Notice of Meeting The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 17 July 2008, at 10 a.m. Due to the closure of the National Building Museum that morning, the meeting will convene at 10 a.m. in the boardroom of the National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20576, for the presentation and review of the National Capital Framework Plan. Following this presentation, the Commission meeting will reconvene at 12 noon in the Commission's offices in the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks, and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: *http://www.cfa.gov* . Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address, or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington, DC, 27 June 26, 2008. Thomas Luebke, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15186 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-45] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,
(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-45 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: June 30, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN08JY08.000 EN08JY08.001 EN08JY08.002 EN08JY08.003 EN08JY08.004 [FR Doc. E8-15277 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Business Board
(DBB)Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Business Board (DBB). DATES: Thursday, July 17, 2008 (9 a.m. to 10:30a.m.) ADDRESSES: Pentagon, Room 3E863. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debora Duffy, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, *Debora.duffy@osd.mil,*
(703)697-2168. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of Defense on effective strategies for implementation of best business practices of interest to the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will deliberate on findings from three task groups:
(1)Task Group Industrial Base Strategic Relationship,
(2)Task Group on Enterprise Governance, and
(3)Task Group on Capabilities Requirements. Copies of DRAFT Task Group presentations will be available on Friday, July 11th by contacting the DBB Office. *Agenda:* 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Public Meeting. • Task Group Reports: • Industrial Base Strategic Relationship • Enterprise Governance • Capabilities Requirements *Public's Accessibility to the Meeting:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact the Defense Business Board no later than Noon on Monday, July 14th to arrange a Pentagon escort. Public attendees are required to arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance by 8:30 a.m and complete security screening by 8:45 a.m. Security screening requires two forms of identification:
(1)a government-issued photo I.D., and
(2)any type of secondary I.D. which verifies the individual's name (i.e. debit card, credit card, work badge, social security card). *Committee's Designated Federal Officer:* Phyllis Ferguson, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, *Phyllis.ferguson@osd.mil,*
(703)695-7563. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Business Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Defense Business Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Business Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed above at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Business Board until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Business Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to all members of the Defense Business Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Dated: July 1, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-15431 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS)for the Brigade Combat Team Transformation at Fort Irwin, CA AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA). SUMMARY: The Fort Irwin National Training Center announces the availability of a Draft PEIS for mission realignment in support of Army Transformation, the Army Campaign Plan, and other Army initiatives. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the Army has prepared a PEIS to disclose potential impacts to the natural, physical, and human environment resulting from Army transformation efforts at Fort Irwin. Potential impacts from alternatives that are capable of meeting the Army's training, operations, and quality of life requirements have been analyzed. After reviewing a full range of possible alternative transformation options, the Army has selected Alternative 4 (increase of approximately 5,000 Soldiers and training rotation capacity increased to 12) as the preferred alternative for Army transformation. DATES: The public comment period for the Draft PEIS will end 45 days after publication of an NOA in the **Federal Register** by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft PEIS are available at the Directorate of Public Affairs. Send all written comments concerning this PEIS to: Mr. Muhammad Ban, U.S. Army National Training Center, Attn: IMWE-IRW-PWE, PO Box 105085, Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5085. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Muhammad Ban at
(760)380-3410, facsimile:
(760)380-2677, e-mail: *Muhammad.ban@us.army.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Draft PEIS assesses the environmental impacts associated with the stationing and training of new Soldiers at Fort Irwin. In October 1999, the senior leadership of the Army expressed a new vision regarding future readiness, force structure, personnel and transformation of the Army to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century. In December 2000, the Army proposed to undertake a synchronized program as stated in the Army Transformation Campaign Plan to transform the existing force structure (from a “division-based” force to a modular “brigade-based” force) in three phases over a 30-year period as described in the PEIS for Army Transformation. A Record of Decision for that PEIS was signed in April 2002 to proceed with the 30-year phased implementation of Army Transformation. The Army leadership determined that the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
(ACR)should transform over a period of several years to become a MultiComponent Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT), deployable throughout the world. Other smaller units would also be stationed at Fort Irwin. Training rotations would increase and additional new Soldiers would be stationed at Fort Irwin. Additional cantonment and range construction would be necessary to support the increase in rotations and troops. This Draft PEIS examines several alternatives for implementation of Army transformation at Fort Irwin. The PEIS will provide the Army senior leadership with a hard look at environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and better inform their decision-making process for selecting the final HBCT transformation option. This PEIS effort will assist the Army in arriving at a decision that can accommodate the Brigade's training, operations, and quality of life requirements while meeting the strategic defense needs of the nation. After reviewing the full range of potential Army transformation options, four alternatives have been identified by the Army as reasonable for meeting the Army's needs and screening criteria. Alternatives include:
(1)Increase of approximately 690 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 11 per year;
(2)increase of approximately 5,000 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 11 per year;
(3)increase of approximately 690 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 12 per year; and
(4)increase of approximately 5,000 Soldiers and add capability to increase training rotations from 10 to 12 per year. The alternatives also include construction of new facilities, an increase in installation operations, and an adjustment of institutional programs to support realigned units and organizations. The No Action Alternative is described and its environmental impacts fully assessed and considered. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives have been considered in the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS identifies significant impacts of each of the four alternative HBCT transformation scenarios. Potential impacts of concern regarding transformation activities (not in priority order) are: water supply, air quality, land uses, utility system capacities, traffic increases, and increase in hazardous material usage and hazardous waste generation. Impacts from alternatives would result from new construction, additional rotations, and additional personnel. Significant impacts to resources would be direct and long term. The No Action Alternative provides the baseline conditions for comparison to the other action alternatives. Additional concerns or impacts may be identified as a result of comments received on this Draft PEIS. Public comment meetings on the Draft PEIS will be held with exact dates and locations to be determined and published in the local news media, via public notices or mailings well in advance of the meetings. Dated: June 27, 2008. Addison D. Davis, IV, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health). [FR Doc. E8-15185 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Finding AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), implementing procedural provisions of NEPA, and Executive Order
(EO)12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, the Department of the Navy
(DON)gives notice that a combined Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Finding of No Significant Harm (FONSH) has been issued and is available for Carrier Strike Group Joint Task Force Exercise (CSG JTFEX) July 2008. DATES: The effective date of the finding is July 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the combined FONSI/FONSH are available for public viewing or downloading at *http://www.navydocuments.com.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander, Second Fleet Public Affairs, Commander Phillips telephone: 757-443-9822 or visit *http://www.navydocuments.com.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSG JTFEX (July 2008) is a major Navy Atlantic Fleet training exercise proposed to occur in July 2008 in the offshore Charleston and Jacksonville Operating Areas (OPAREAs) and adjacent military installations. The purpose of this exercise is to certify naval forces as combat-ready. Activities conducted during the exercise include air-to-ground
(ATG)bombing at land ranges, Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO), Naval Gunfire using non-explosive ordnance, Fast Attack Craft/Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FAC/FIAC), and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), including use of mid-frequency active
(MFA)sonar. The FONSI is based on analysis contained in a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment
(EA)addressing environmental impacts associated with land-based training for Major Atlantic Fleet Training Exercises on the East and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. (February 2006). The FONSH is based on analysis contained in a Comprehensive Overseas Environmental Assessment
(OEA)(February 2006) and a Supplement to the Comprehensive OEA
(SOEA)for environmental impacts associated with Navy's conduct of major exercise training in offshore operating areas along the East and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. (April 2008). Environmental concerns addressed in the EA included land use, community facilities, coastal zone management, socioeconomics, cultural resources, airspace, air quality, noise, geology, soils, water resources, biological resources, munitions and hazardous materials management, and safety. The EA and OEA addressed potential impacts to the ocean physical environment, fish and Essential Fish Habitat; sea turtles and marine mammals; seabirds and migratory birds; endangered and threatened species; socioeconomics; and cultural resources. The SOEA included an updated analysis of MFA sonar use. This action includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. In accordance with the Major Atlantic Fleet Training Exercise EA and OEA and the SOEA and the evaluation of the nature, scope and intensity of the proposed action, the Navy finds that the conduct of the CSG JTFEX in July 2008 will not significantly impact or harm the environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or Overseas Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Dated: July 1, 2008. T. M. Cruz, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-15400 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final priorities for RRTCs. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces four priorities for RRTCs under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by NIDRR. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these priorities for competitions in fiscal year
(FY)2008 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend these priorities to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* These priorities are effective August 7, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *donna.nangle@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, 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: We published a notice of proposed priorities
(NPP)for NIDRR's RRTC program in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22932). The NPP included background statements that described our rationale for the priorities proposed in that notice. There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priorities
(NFP)as discussed in the following section. Analysis of Comments and Changes In response to our invitation in the NPP, five parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities since publication of the NPP follows. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities. General Comments *Comment:* With regard to priorities 1 through 3, one commenter noted that “scientifically based research” is required only for research activities that require testing interventions. This commenter recommended that all research conducted under these priorities be “scientifically based.” *Discussion:* NIDRR only requires “scientifically based research” for research activities that involve testing interventions. The definition of “scientifically based research” used in all of the priorities in this notice emphasizes the use of “experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments” (See section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for the definition of the term “scientifically based research.”). NIDRR believes that experimental research designs are appropriate for research that involves testing interventions, but not necessarily for the other research activities to be carried out under these priorities. For example, experimental designs are not generally appropriate or necessary in the initial stages of developing new measures and methods, identifying or developing interventions, or determining the experiences and outcomes of individuals with disabilities who seek to return to work. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter noted that each of the proposed priorities included an incorrect reference for the Department's definition of the term scientifically based research. *Discussion:* We agree and will make this change. *Changes:* In all four priorities, we have changed the reference for the Department's definition of scientifically based research to section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. *Comment:* Two commenters recommended that NIDRR remove all references to employment from priorities 1 through 3. One of these commenters noted that NIDRR's Long Range Plan for fiscal years 2005-2009
(Plan)acknowledges the continued need for research on medical rehabilitation interventions to improve function, as well as health research to improve outcomes such as health and wellness. This commenter suggested that including an employment-related outcome in the priorities that focus primarily on health and function topics will dilute the impact of research carried out under NIDRR's employment and health and function domains. This commenter also expressed concern that the focus on employment outcomes would preclude research on community participation outcomes and recommended that NIDRR include in each priority a statement from its Plan that acknowledges the importance of health and function among people with disabilities to achieve NIDRR's mission and the goals of employment and community participation. *Discussion:* NIDRR does not agree with these comments and the associated recommendations. In the Plan, we state: “While the proposed plan is organized along domains of research [e.g., employment, health and function, participation and community living] for the sake of manageability, it also makes clear that disability is a holistic phenomenon that involves many overlapping and cross-domain issues.” (See 71 FR 8166, 8166.) We also note, “In addition, with respect to those programs for which NIDRR establishes annual priorities—Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs), Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs), and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—NIDRR may require applicants to focus on one or more target populations or issues that cut across domains.” We indicate clearly in the Plan that RRTCs are expected to be multidisciplinary—in other words, to combine the strengths and perspectives of researchers from multiple disciplines and areas of expertise. (See 71 FR 8166, 8177.) Therefore, we believe that a focus on employment in priorities 1 through 3 is consistent with the multidisciplinary approach in the Plan. Although a mandatory focus on employment outcomes in these priorities may limit research activities related to outcomes in other domains, NIDRR believes that research involving both the health and function and employment domains will generate knowledge that can be used to improve both medical rehabilitation and vocational rehabilitation
(VR)services for individuals with disabilities. NIDRR recognizes that there are many factors likely to affect the relationship between health and functional abilities, on the one hand, and employment outcomes, on the other. Research under these priorities can help provide insight into this relationship so that medical and VR services can be optimized and targeted appropriately. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Referring to priorities 1 through 3, one commenter recommended removing the requirement that the centers recruit research participants from VR populations. The commenter noted that such a requirement would unnecessarily limit study populations, create recruitment barriers, and result in unnecessarily expensive and lengthy studies to demonstrate empirical relationships between health and functional status and employment outcomes. *Discussion:* Proposed priorities 1 through 3 did not require recruitment of research participants from populations of individuals who are served by State VR programs. The priorities state that the center must conduct research on individuals who are served by the State VR Services program, or who receive rehabilitation services from other sources. *Changes:* None. Priority 2—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis *Comment:* In reference to language in paragraph
(b)of this priority, one commenter noted that research and clinical information indicate that the vast majority of individuals with multiple sclerosis
(MS)already live in community settings. The commenter stated that it is important to support research that improves the ability of individuals with MS to participate in the community and suggested that NIDRR revise the priority to reflect that focus. *Discussion:* We intended to emphasize the need for research to improve employment and community participation outcomes in this priority. We will change the priority to clarify our intent. *Changes:* In paragraph
(b)of this priority, we have clarified that the grantee must examine, among other things, interventions to enhance community participation. *Comment:* One commenter stated that there is a need for research on strategies and assistive devices that enhance the functional and community participation outcomes among individuals with MS. *Discussion:* While NIDRR agrees with the commenter that there is a need for research about strategies and assistive devices to enhance the functional and community participation outcomes for individuals with MS, NIDRR does not believe that it is necessary to revise the priority to address this specific need. Applicants under this priority already have flexibility to choose the types of interventions they propose to identify, or to develop and evaluate. Assistive devices are one specific type of intervention that could be examined under this priority. *Changes:* None. Priority 3—Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment *Comment:* One commenter asked whether applicants under this priority must choose from the list of impairment groups in the second paragraph of the priority when selecting the groups that will be the focus of their research. *Discussion:* The short list of impairment groups in the priority provides examples; applicants are not restricted to this list. Applicants are free to select the group or groups that will be the focus of their research. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* One commenter asked whether the focus of this priority is exclusively on individuals with disabilities who are 65 years of age or older, or if the focus is also on adults with disabilities in middle age. *Discussion:* NIDRR does not intend for this center to focus only on individuals with disabilities who are 65 years of age or older. As we describe in the background statement for this priority, NIDRR is interested in the experience of individuals who acquired their disability at birth, childhood, or early adulthood and who are now aging. We will add language to the priority to make this clear. *Changes:* We have changed the language to clarify that the center funded under this priority must focus its research on individuals with a physical disability, including those who acquired their disability at birth, in childhood, or in early adulthood and who are now aging into middle or late adulthood. *Comment:* One commenter noted that the prevention of falls among individuals with physical disabilities should be a key research priority. *Discussion:* NIDRR agrees that the prevention of falls is a topic that is relevant to individuals who are aging with physical disabilities. Applicants are free to propose research on this topic under this priority. *Changes:* None. Priority 4—Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities *Comment:* One commenter requested that NIDRR provide references to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Best Practices Planning and Implementation Grants program, to facilitate collaboration of the center funded under this priority with this program. *Discussion:* NIDRR agrees that SAMHSA's Best Practices Planning and Implementation Grants program may be a potential source of information for, or potential collaborator of, the center funded under this priority. NIDRR typically references in its priorities only those programs or entities with which the grantee is required to collaborate. In this case, NIDRR does not believe it is appropriate to require all applicants to propose to collaborate with this SAMHSA program. For this reason, NIDRR declines to reference the SAMHSA program in the text of this priority. *Changes:* None. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use these final priorities, we invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . When inviting applications we designate each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows: *Absolute priority:* Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). *Competitive preference priority:* Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1)awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive preference priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or
(2)selecting an application that meets the competitive preference priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). *Invitational priority:* Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). This notice of final priorities
(NFP)is in concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative
(NFI)and NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). Background information on the NFI can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom* . The Plan, which was published in the **Federal Register** on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html* . Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to:
(1)Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research;
(2)foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations;
(3)determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations;
(4)identify research gaps;
(5)identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and
(6)disseminate findings. Priorities In this notice, we are announcing four priorities for RRTCs. • Priority 1—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke. • Priority 2—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis. • Priority 3—Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment. • Priority 4—Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities. Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) The purpose of the RRTC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, through advanced research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities in general problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. Such activities are designed to benefit rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, and the family members or other authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities. In addition, NIDRR intends to require all RRTC applicants to meet the requirements of the General Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
(RRTC)Requirements priority, which was published in a notice of final priorities in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC* . Statutory and Regulatory Requirements of RRTCs RRTCs must— • Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation research; • Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; • Provide technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; • Demonstrate in their applications how they will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds; • Disseminate informational materials to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; and • Serve as centers of national excellence in rehabilitation research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties. Priorities Priority 1—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
(RRTC)on Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to enhance the functional and employment outcomes of individuals who experience a stroke. In doing so, the RRTC must focus on no more than two of the following dimensions: Improved mobility, secondary conditions (e.g., pain, fatigue), and emotional well-being. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a)Improved outcome measures for use with individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing methods and measures to assess outcomes in the dimensions that the RRTC chooses to focus on (e.g., mobility, secondary conditions, emotional well-being).
(b)Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based rehabilitation interventions for individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation interventions that are designed to improve mobility, reduce the onset of secondary conditions, or improve emotional well-being among individuals who experience a stroke. Where possible, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.
(c)Improved employment outcomes among individuals who experience a stroke. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences and outcomes of individuals who experience a stroke and who seek to return to work. The RRTC's research must include research on individuals who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR)Services program or who receive stroke/neuro-rehabilitation services from other sources, and must identify neuro-rehabilitation services that are associated with positive outcomes in the treatment of specific stroke-related impairments and functional limitations thereby allowing individuals to return to work. Priority 2—Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
(RRTC)on Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to enhance the functional and employment outcomes of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). In doing so, the RRTC must focus on how one or both of the following dimensions affect the employment outcomes of individuals with MS: The prevention or reduction of secondary conditions (e.g., pain, fatigue, depression, cognitive impairment) and improved mobility. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a)Improved outcome measures for use with individuals with MS. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying or developing and testing methods and measures to assess outcomes in the dimensions on which the RRTC chooses to focus.
(b)Improved medical rehabilitation or community-based rehabilitation interventions. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by improving the ability of individuals with MS to remain in the workforce and to participate in the community through identifying or developing and testing new rehabilitation interventions. Where possible, the Center must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.
(c)Improved employment outcomes among individuals with MS. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences and outcomes of individuals with MS who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
(VR)program or who receive MS-rehabilitation services from other sources, and by identifying rehabilitation services that are associated with the reduction of specific MS-related symptoms and functional limitations. Research must include investigation of job modifications and accommodations associated with successful employment. Priority 3—Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
(RRTC)on Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment. This RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to improve rehabilitation outcome measures and rehabilitation interventions that can be applied in clinical or community-based settings and used by other researchers. The intended outcome of the RRTC is to enhance community participation, including employment, of individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities by advancing knowledge about the identification, assessment, treatment, and improved management of the secondary conditions likely experienced by individuals aging with a physical disability. Individuals aging with a physical disability include those who acquired their disability at birth, in childhood, or in early adulthood and who are now aging into middle or late adulthood. In addressing this priority, the RRTC must propose a limited number of high-quality, cross-disability research projects to address the secondary conditions that are most relevant to the lives of individuals with physical disabilities. To ensure the feasibility of the RRTC's proposed activities and increase the likelihood of achieving the planned outcomes, the RRTC must focus on two to four discrete impairment groups (e.g., spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke, post-polio) and must limit intervention strategies to no more than two of the following modalities: exercise, health promotion, psychological adaptation, life planning or self-management skills, and environmental or technological supports. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a)Enhanced understanding of the natural course of aging with a physical disability. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by documenting the life trajectories and average age of onset of the major types of secondary conditions experienced by individuals living with long-term physical disabilities in the selected impairment groups, and examining the interrelationships among different types of secondary conditions and the consequences of variations in timing of onset for health and community participation.
(b)Improved tools and measures for use with individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying, developing or modifying, and testing measurement tools that improve the identification and assessment of the major types of secondary conditions affecting individuals in the selected impairment groups, as well as the outcomes of interventions designed to prevent or reduce these conditions.
(c)Improved rehabilitation or community-based interventions that enhance the health and participation in work and the community of individuals aging with physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying, developing or modifying, and testing interventions that show promise in preventing the onset of or improving the management and reducing the impact of secondary conditions on individuals in the selected impairment groups. Where possible, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods to test these interventions.
(d)Improved employment outcomes among working-age individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the experiences, including employment outcomes, of individuals aging with long-term physical disabilities in the selected impairment groups who are served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR)Services program or who receive rehabilitation services from other sources, and by identifying specific secondary conditions that require improved and unique VR services and approaches. Priority 4—Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
(RRTC)on Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities. The RRTC must conduct rigorous research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities that contribute to improved community participation and community living outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Under this priority, the RRTC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a)Improved individual and system capacity to maximize the participation of individuals with psychiatric disabilities in community life. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by:
(1)Generating new knowledge through research on effective strategies to meet the needs of individuals with psychiatric disabilities who are served by centers for independent living and identifying independent living services and service-delivery approaches that meet the unique needs of this population.
(2)Increasing the knowledge base and advancing the application of theories, measures, methods, or interventions that facilitate participation and community living of individuals with psychiatric disabilities. In this regard, the RRTC must focus its efforts on at least three of the following areas: Employment, housing, education, health and mental health care, recreation, social relationships, or other public and private sector activities related to community living. If the RRTC engages in testing interventions, the RRTC must use scientifically based research (as this term is defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) methods.
(3)Reducing disparities in service delivery and program development by focusing its work on one or more of the following understudied areas:
(i)Emergency preparedness for individuals with psychiatric disabilities;
(ii)individuals with psychiatric disabilities from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds; or
(iii)individuals with psychiatric disabilities who have co-occurring sensory or physical disabilities.
(b)Increased incorporation of mental health research findings into practice or policy. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by coordinating with appropriate NIDRR-funded knowledge translation grantees to advance or add to their work in the following areas:
(1)Developing and implementing procedures to evaluate the readiness of mental health research findings for translation into practice.
(2)Collaborating with stakeholder groups to develop, evaluate, or implement strategies to increase utilization of mental health research findings.
(3)Conducting training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities to increase utilization of mental health research findings. Information on knowledge translation projects funded by NIDRR can be found at *http://www.naric.com/research/pd/priority.cfm* . Executive Order 12866 This NFP has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this NFP are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this NFP, we have determined that the benefits of the final priorities justify the costs. Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. These final priorities will generate new knowledge and technologies through research, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance projects. Another benefit of these final priorities is that the establishment of new RRTCs will support the President's NFI and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new RRTCs will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will improve employment and community living options for individuals with disabilities. *Applicable Program Regulations:* 34 CFR part 350. 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* . 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 Numbers 84.133B Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers Program) Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2). Dated: July 2, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-15503 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION President's Board of Advisors (Board), The White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHI/TCU) Meeting AGENCY: The White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of An Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This purpose of this notice is to announce an open meeting of the President's Board of Advisors (Board), The White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHI/TCU) on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the Navajo Technical College, Lower Point Road, Crownpoint, New Mexico 87313; and, on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, 9169 Coors Road, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87184. This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of the upcoming meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. This notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. Dates and Times: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. ADDRESSES: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Navajo Technical College, Lower Point Road, Crownpoint, New Mexico 87313; and, on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, 9169 Coors Road, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87184. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anselm Davis, Executive Director, White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 7014, Washington, DC 20006; Telephone: 202-219-7040; Fax: 202-219-7086. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities was established under Executive Order 13270, dated July 3, 2002, and Executive Order 13446, dated September 28, 2007. The Board was established:
(a)To report to the President annually on the results of the participation of Tribal Colleges and Universities in Federal programs, including recommendations on how to increase the private sector role, including the role of private foundations, in strengthening these institutions, with particular emphasis also given to enhancing institutional planning and development, strengthening fiscal stability and financial management, and improving institutional infrastructure, including the use of technology, to ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of these institutions;
(b)to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on the needs of TCUs in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development;
(c)to advise the Secretary in the preparation of a three-year Federal plan for assistance to TCUs in increasing their capacity to participate in Federal programs;
(d)to provide the President with an annual progress report on enhancing the capacity of TCUs to serve their students; and
(e)to develop, in consultation with the Department of Education and other Federal agencies, a private sector strategy to assist TCUs. The purpose of the meeting is to update and document the Board's Action Agenda through a review of collaborative efforts, to review the final draft of the Fiscal Year 2006 Report to the President, and to discuss relevant issues to be addressed as the Board pursues opportunities to strengthen capacity of programs at the Tribal Colleges and Universities. *Additional Information:* Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Tonya Ewers 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, Telephone: 202-219-7040, no later than July 10, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date, but we cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting sites are accessible to individuals with disabilities. An opportunity for public comment is available on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, between 2:15 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. Comments will be limited to five
(5)minutes for those who sign up to speak. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to Tonya Ewers, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, by Thursday, July 10, 2008. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. *Electronic Access to this Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/federegister.* 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 at GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Sara Martinez Tucker, Under Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15394 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs); Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Numbers:* 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, and 84.133B-10. Note: This notice invites applications for four separate competitions. For key dates, contact person information, and funding information regarding each of the four competitions, see the chart in the *Award Information* section of this notice. DATES: *Applications Available:* See chart. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* See chart. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the RRTC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, through advanced research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities in general problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. Such activities are designed to benefit rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, and the family members or other authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities. Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC* . *Priorities:* NIDRR has established five separate priorities for the four competitions announced in this notice. The General RRTC Requirements priority, which applies to all RRTC competitions, is from the notice of final priorities
(NFP)for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132). The remaining four priorities are from the NFP for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), for each competition (designated by CFDA number in the following chart), we consider only applications that meet both the General RRTC Requirements priority and the absolute priority designated for that competition. These priorities are: Absolute priority Corresponding competition CFDA No. General RRTC Requirements 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, 84.133B-10. Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke 84.133B-7. Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis 84.133B-8. Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment 84.133B-9. Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities 84.133B-10. Note: The full text of each of these priorities is included in its notice of final priorities in the **Federal Register** and in the applicable application package. *Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2). *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.
(c)The NFP for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program, published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6132).
(d)The NFP for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers program, published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $7,650,000. *Maximum Award:* See chart. *Estimated Number of Awards:* See chart. *Project Period:* See chart. Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers Application Notice for Fiscal Year 2008 CFDA number and name Applications available Deadline for transmittal of applications Date of pre-application meeting Estimated average size of awards Maximum award* Estimated number of awards Project period Contact person 84.133B-7 Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals Who Experience a Stroke 07/08/2008 08/22/2008 07/29/08 $850,000 *$850,000 1 Up to 60 mos. Donna Nangle
(202)245-7462 Rm 6029. 84.133B-8 Enhancing the Functional and Employment Outcomes of Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis 07/29/08 850,000 *850,000 1 Up to 60 mos 84.133B-9 Aging With Physical Disability: Reducing Secondary Conditions and Enhancing Health and Participation, Including Employment 07/29/08 850,000 *850,000 1 Up to 60 mos 84.133B-10 Participation and Community Living for Individuals With Psychiatric Disabilities 07/29/08 850,000 *850,000 1 Up to 60 mos III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.* To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX:
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: *edpubs@inet.ed.gov* . If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify the competition to which you want to apply, as follows: CFDA number 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, or 84.133B-10. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for each competition announced in this notice. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 125 pages for each competition, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. Single spacing may be used for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and a narrative budget justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* See chart. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in any of the pre-application meetings held for the competitions announced in this notice and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The dates for each of the competitions' pre-application meetings are listed in the chart in the *Award Information* section in this notice. Interested parties may participate in these meetings on the dates listed in the chart by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m., Washington, DC, time. For each meeting, NIDRR staff also will be available from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in any of these meetings via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov* . *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under the competitions announced in this notice must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications* . Applications for grants under the RRTC competitions (CFDA numbers 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, and 84.133B-10) must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov* . Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the RRTC competitions (CFDA numbers 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, and 84.133B-10) at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for the competition to which you are applying by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.133, not 84.133B). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for the competition to which you are applying to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII in this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. FAX:
(202)245-7323. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, or 84.133B-10), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, or 84.133B-10), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133B-7, 84.133B-8, 84.133B-9, or 84.133B-10), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for the competitions announced in this notice are from 34 CFR 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in determining the merits of an application are as follows— The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of the proposed measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V.2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria listed in the application package. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* To evaluate the overall success of its research program, NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through a review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly awarded NIDRR projects that are conducting at least one multi-site, collaborative controlled trial of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that include studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous and appropriate methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports
(APRs)in support of these performance measures. Updates on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)indicators, revisions, and methods appear on the NIDRR Program Review Web site: *http://www.neweditions.net/pr/commonfiles/pmconcepts.htm.* Grantees should consult these sites on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone:
(202)245-7462 or by e-mail: *Donnna.Nangle@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone:
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: July 2, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-15506 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Number: 459-224] Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests June 27, 2008. a. *Type of Application:* Non-project use of project lands and waters. b. *Project Number:* 459-224. c. *Date Filed:* June 10, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Ameren/UE. e. *Name of Project:* Osage Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The project is located at the Lakeside at Cross Creek development near mile markers 30.9+1.5 to 30.9+2 of the Linn Creek Cove of the Lake of the Ozarks, in Camden County, Missouri. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a), 825(r) and 799 and 801. h. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049, (573)-365-9214. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Christopher Yeakel at
(202)502-8132, or e-mail address: *christopher.yeakel@* ferc.gov. j. *Deadline for Filing Comments and/or Motions:* July 28, 2008. k. *Description of Request:* Ameren/UE requests approval to permit VOC Investments, LLC, to construct 20 new multi-slip boat docks at the Lakeside at Cross Creek development. The docks would have a total of 435 boat slips ranging from 32 feet long and 12 feet wide to 48 feet long and 16 feet wide and would include central walkways 6 feet wide. The docks would be available to the residents of the Lakeside at Cross Creek development. The shoreline is currently undeveloped. No dredging, fuel dispensing, or sewage pumping facilities are proposed. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. 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 (p-459) to access the document. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers (p-459-224). All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. p. *Agency Comments* —Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. Comments, protests and interventions 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 at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15218 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP08-430-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Amendment Application July 1, 2008. On June 23, 2008, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and section 157 Subpart A of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, filed to amend its certificate. The requested amendment, the Eminence Enhancement Project, would add an additional 4,735 horsepower compressor unit and appurtenant facilities to provide enhanced injection rights to nine customers participating in the Eminence salt dome Storage Field in Covington County, Mississippi. The Eminence Enhancement Project would cost $19.3 million. So that the facilities are available to meet user timing needs, Transco requests Commission issuance of the necessary authorizations by February 1, 2009. Questions concerning this application should be directed to Ingrid Germany at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251 or by calling 713-215-4015. 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. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail * FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 22, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15428 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-72-000] NRG Energy, Inc., Complainants, v. Entergy Services, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint June 30, 2008. Take notice that on June 27, 2008, NRG Energy, Inc. and its affiliated companies, (collectively, NRG) pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e
(2000)and Rules 206 and 306 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 386.306 (2008), submit this complaint against Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy), alleging that Entergy's May 30, 2008 annual transmission rate filing includes bonus compensation paid to Entergy employees that should not be passed on to it transmission service customers. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of Respondent's answer, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the answer, protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15425 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RC08-1-001] Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing July 1, 2008. Take notice that on June 20, 2008, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC)filed a decision addressing the Commission's February 21, 2008 decision in this proceeding remanding a NERC registry decision involving the Southeastern Power Administration
(SEPA)for either reconsideration or further explanation. 1 On remand NERC states that it has affirmed SERC Reliability Corporation's
(SERC)decision to remove the function of Resource Planner from the NERC Compliance Registry for SEPA. NERC states that it has affirmed SERC's decision to retain SEPA's registration as a Transmission Operator. However, NERC states that it has also directed SERC to evaluate and determine whether the Army Corps of Engineers should be co-registered with SEPA as a Transmission Operator. 1 *Southeastern Power Administration,* 122 FERC ¶ 61,140 (2008). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15424 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [P-2101-084-CA] Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Notice of Meeting July 1, 2008. a. *Project:* Upper American River Hydroelectric Project, El Dorado County, California. b. *Date and Time of Meeting:* Thursday, July 17, 2008, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. (PST). c. *Place:* 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825. By copy of this notice, we are also inviting all interested parties to attend a teleconference from their location. d. *FERC Contact:* Alan Mitchnick,
(202)502-6074, *alan.mitchnick@ferc.gov.* e. *Purpose of the Meeting:* On September 25, 2007, the Commission requested formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)on relicensing of the project. On December 13, 2007, FWS indicated that the Commission must evaluate the effects on listed species of the recently signed water storage agreement between the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD)and El Dorado County et al. The Commission staff will be meeting with FWS and SMUD to discuss this issue. f. All local, state, and federal agencies, and interested parties, are hereby invited to attend the meeting or listen in on the teleconference. The meeting location and phone number and passcode to the teleconference will be provided upon a request made by interested parties. Please make that request to Alan Mitchnick via e-mail at *alan.mitchnick@ferc.gov* NO LATER THAN close of business Tuesday, July 14, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15427 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. IN06-3-003; IN06-3-004] Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.; Energy Transfer Company; ETC Marketing Ltd.; Houston Pipeline Company; Oasis Pipeline, L.P.; Oasis Pipeline Company Texas, L.P.; ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd., Oasis Division; Supplemental Notice of Designation of Commission Staff July 1, 2008. On December 20, 2007, a notice was issued designating the staff of the Office of Enforcement as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket, with certain limited exceptions. Exceptions to this designation are the Director of the Office of Enforcement and the Directors of the Divisions of Investigations, Energy Market Oversight, Audits, and Financial Regulation in the Office of Enforcement, and Shauna Coleman. 1 This supplemental notice designates Christopher Ellsworth, an energy industry analyst in the Division of Market Oversight, Office of Enforcement, as an exception to the designation of the staff of the Office of Enforcement as non-decisional. Mr. Ellsworth joined the Commission after the December 27, 2007 notice was issued and did not participate in the investigation at issue in this proceeding. 1 See March 3, 2008 Supplemental Notice in Docket No. IN06-3-003. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15426 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OW-2008-0357, FRL-8688-8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants, EPA ICR Number 2048.01, OMB Control Number 2040-0244 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a continuing Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 25, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW-2008-0357, to EPA online at Regulations.gov using the Comment or Submission function (our preferred method), by hand delivery to the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC (during normal hours of operation), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lars Wilcut, Standards and Health Protection Division, Office of Science and Technology (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)566-0447; fax number:
(202)566-0409; e-mail address: *wilcut.lars@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW-2008-0357, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Regulations.gov Web site ( *http://www.regulations.gov/* ). Use Regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, then key in the docket ID number identified above in the Comment or Submission field. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing on Regulations.gov without change as they are received by EPA, with the exception of comments containing copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed on Regulations.gov. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. For those comments containing information claimed as CBI, or information otherwise restricted by statute, that material will be identified as an item in the official docket but will not be included in the official public docket or available for public viewing on Regulations.gov. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's **Federal Register** notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or online at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are those coastal and Great Lakes state, local, and tribal governments which are eligible for BEACH Act grants. These are governments that develop and implement programs for the monitoring and notification of coastal (marine and Great Lakes) recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public. *Title:* Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants. *Abstract:* Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 2000 to amend the Clean Water Act, in part by adding Section 406, “Coastal Recreation Water Monitoring and Notification.” Section 406(b) authorizes EPA to make grants to state and local governments to develop and implement programs for the monitoring and public notification of coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public upon satisfaction of the requirements of the BEACH Act. The Section obligates a grant recipient to collect and submit information to EPA as a condition for receiving the grant. Specific provisions of 406(b) include the requirements that a grant recipient submit the factors used to prioritize funds and a list of waters for which the grant funds will be used, and that a grant recipient's program be consistent with the performance requirements set by EPA under section 406(a). EPA needs this information from the grant recipients to determine if their monitoring and notification programs are consistent with these criteria. On July 19, 2002, EPA published the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants (67 FR 47540). Section 406(b) obligates grant recipients to submit a report to EPA describing the data collected as part of a monitoring and notification program and the actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded. Section 406(c) requires a grant recipient to identify lists of coastal recreation waters, processes for states to delegate the responsibility for implementing a monitoring and notification program to local governments, and the content of the monitoring and notification program. The information encompassed by this ICR is required of states and local governments that seek to obtain BEACH Act funding. It allows EPA to properly review state and local governments' monitoring and notification programs to determine if they are eligible for BEACH Act grant funding, and enables EPA to fulfill its obligations to make this information available to the public under Sections 406(e) and (g). An agency may not conduct nor 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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,993 hours per grant recipient per year. This burden represents a report and accompanying data to be are submitted each year by the 40 eligible states and territories. In subsequent years, authorized tribes and local governments may also become eligible for BEACH Act grants. 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:
(1)Review instructions;
(2)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;
(3)adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
(4)search data sources;
(5)complete and review the collection of information; and
(6)transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: July 1, 2008. Ephraim King, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. E8-15439 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8688-6] Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site; Proposed Notice of Administrative Settlement Based on a Limited Ability To Pay at the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; Request for Public Comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a proposed Administrative Settlement (“Agreement”) based on limited ability to pay for a potential source facility at the Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site in Phoenix, Arizona (“52nd Street Site” or “Site”). The Agreement has been negotiated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the owner and operator of the potential source facility, Paul McCoys Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc. (“Respondent”) subject to the final review and approval of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed Agreement settles Respondent's liability at the Site pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) (“CERCLA”). In the Agreement, Respondent agrees to pay the EPA $26,000 representing a portion of costs incurred in response to the release or threat of release of hazardous substances the Site. In exchange, the proposed Agreement includes EPA's covenant not to sue or to take administrative action against Respondent. For thirty
(30)calendar days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2008. *Availability:* The proposed Agreement may be obtained from Judith Winchell, Docket Clerk, telephone
(415)972-3124. Comments regarding the proposed Agreement should be addressed to Judith Winchell (SFD-7) at United States EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and should reference “Motorola 52nd Street Superfund Site,” and “Docket No. R9-2008-03”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Dreyfus, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; E-mail: *dreyfus.bethany@epa.gov;* phone:
(415)972-3886. Dated: June 26, 2008. Michael Montgomery, Acting Director, Superfund Division, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-15433 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8688-7] Proposed Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for the Wabash Environmental Technologies Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ACTION: Notice; Request for public comment on proposed CERCLA 122(h)(1) agreement with Heidtman Steel Products, Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Company LLC; and Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. for the Wabash Environmental Technologies Superfund Site. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1984, as amended (“CERCLA”), notification is hereby given of a proposed administrative agreement concerning the Wabash Environmental Technologies hazardous waste site in Terre Haute, Indiana (the “Site”). EPA proposes to enter into this agreement under the authority of section 122(h) and 107 of CERCLA. The proposed agreement has been executed by Heidtman Steel Products, Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Company LLC; and Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (the “Settling Parties”). Under the proposed agreement, the Settling Parties will pay $200,000 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund to resolve EPA's claims against them for response costs incurred by EPA at the Site. EPA has incurred response costs investigating and performing response actions at the Site to mitigate potential imminent and substantial endangerments to human health or the environment presented or threatened by hazardous substances present at the Site. For thirty days following the date of publication of this notice, the EPA will receive written comments relating to this proposed agreement. EPA will consider all comments received and may decide not to enter this proposed agreement if comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed agreement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. DATES: Comments on the proposed agreement must be received by EPA on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, and should refer to: In the Matter of Wabash Environmental Technologies Site, Terre Haute, Indiana, U.S. EPA Docket No. V-W-08C-903. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Krueger, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, C-14J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590,
(312)886-0562. A copy of the proposed administrative settlement agreement may be obtained in person or by mail from the EPA's Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590. Additional background information relating to the settlement is available for review at the EPA's Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel. Authority: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. Dated: June 26, 2008. Richard C. Karl, Director, Superfund Division, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-15434 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval, Comments Requested July 1, 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 August 7, 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:* 3060-0674. *Title:* Section 76.1618, Basic Tier Availability. *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities. *Number of Respondents and Responses:* 8,250 respondents; 8,250 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2.25 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 4(i) and Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. *Total Annual Burden:* 18,563 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* None. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 76.1618 states that a cable operator shall provide written notification to subscribers of the availability of basic tier service to new subscribers at the time of installation. This notification shall include the following information:
(a)That basic tier service is available;
(b)the cost per month for basic tier service; and
(c)a list of all services included in the basic service tier. These notification requirements are to ensure the subscribers are made aware of the availability of basic cable service at the time of installation. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15447 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 22, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago** (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: *1. Demetris Giannoulias* , Evanston, Illinois, individually and as Trustee of the Broadway DG Trust, George Giannoulias, Chicago, Illinois, individually and as Trustee of the Broadway GG Trust and the George Broadway Revocable Trust, the Broadway DG Trust, Evanston, Illinois, the Broadway GG Trust, Chicago, Illinois, and the George Broadway Revocable Trust, Chicago, Illinois, to acquire voting shares, and thereby join the existing Giannoulias Family control group, of Broadway Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Broadway Bank, both of Chicago, Illinois. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 2, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-15416 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review Group 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)announce the following teleconference meeting: *Name:* National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) Initial Review Group (IRG). *Times and Date:* 2 p.m.-2:30 p.m. July 15, 2008 (Open). 2:30 p.m.-4 p.m. July 15, 2008 (Closed). *Place:* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chamblee Campus, Building 106, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Toll Free: 888-793-2154, Participant Passcode: 4424802. *Status:* Portions of the meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Sections 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5, U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463. *Purpose:* This group is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Director, CDC, concerning the scientific and technical merit of grant and cooperative agreement applications received from academic institutions and other public and private profit and nonprofit organizations, including State and local government agencies, to conduct specific injury research that focuses on prevention and control. *Matters To Be Discussed:* The meeting will include the reconvening of the June 18, 2008 Panel for the peer review of two of the nine applications submitted in response to Fiscal Year 2008 Requests for Applications related to the following individual research announcements: RFA-CE-08-001, Youth Violence Prevention through Community-Level Change (U49); and RFA-CE-08-003, Research for Preventing Violence and Violence-Related Injury (R01). The completion of peer review of applications submitted in response to Fiscal Year 2008 Requests for Applications related to the following individual research announcements: RFA-CD-08-001, Elimination of Health Disparities through Translation Research
(R18)(NCIPC); RFA-CD-08-001, Elimination of Health Disparities through Translation Research
(R18)(NCEH); RFA-EH-08-002, Program to Expand State or Territorial Public Health Laboratory Capacity for Newborn Bloodspot Screening to include Severe Combined Immune Deficiency
(SCID)(U01); and RFA-TS-08-003, Environmental Health and Toxicology Research Program (U01). Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. *Contact Person for More Information:* Jane Suen, Ph.D., M.S., Executive Secretary, NCIPC IRG, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S F-62, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, telephone 770-488-4281. This notice is published less than 15 days before the meeting due to administrative requirements to reschedule the meeting and to ensure that reviewers would be available on that date. 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 30, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-15399 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services The National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) is soliciting nominations for possible membership on the Board of Scientific Counselors. This Board provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCEH/ATSDR, regarding program goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities in fulfillment of the agencies' mission to protect and promote people's health. The Board provides advice and guidance to help NCEH/ATSDR work more efficiently and effectively with its various constituents and to fulfill its mission in protecting America's health. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the Board's objectives. Nominees will be selected from experts having experience in preventing human diseases and disabilities caused by environmental conditions. Experts in the disciplines of toxicology, epidemiology, environmental or occupational medicine, behavioral science, risk assessment, exposure assessment, and experts in public health and other related disciplines will be considered. Consideration is given to representation from diverse geographic areas, gender, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms. Nominees must be U.S. citizens. The following information must be submitted for each candidate: Name, affiliation, address, telephone number, and current curriculum vitae. E-mail addresses are requested if available. Nominations should be sent, in writing, and postmarked by October 31, 2008 to: Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway (MS-F61), Chamblee, Georgia 30341. Telephone and facsimile submissions cannot be accepted. 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 National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 30, 2008. Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-15429 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public. *Name of Committee* : Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. *General Function of the Committee* : To provide advice and recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues. *Date and Time* : The meeting will be held on August 6 and 7, 2008, from 8 a.m. to5 p.m. *Location* : Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-589-5200. *Contact Person* : Diem-Kieu Ngo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093) Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e-mail: *diem.ngo@fda.hhs.gov* , or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512543. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the **Federal Register** about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting. *Agenda* : On August 6, 2008, the committee will discuss new drug application
(NDA)20-427, vigabatrin, Ovation Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the proposed indication of adjunctive therapy for the treatment of refractory complex partial seizures in adults. On August 7, 2008, the committee will discuss NDA 22-006, vigabatrin, Ovation Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the proposed indication of treatment of infantile spasms. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm* , click on the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link. *Procedure* : Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before July 23, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on both days. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before July 15, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by July 16, 2008. Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diem-Kieu Ngo at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at *http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm* for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). Dated: June 26, 2008. Randall W. Lutter, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15471 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with the requirement for the opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration
(HRSA)publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, e-mail *paperwork@hrsa.gov* or call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on
(301)443-1129. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Proposed Project: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program: Client Level Data Reporting System: New The Client-Level Data Reporting System (CLDRS), created in 2008 by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), is designed to collect information from grantees, as well as their subcontracted service providers, funded under Parts A, B, C, D, and F of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 (Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program). The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program provides the Federal HIV/AIDS Programs in the Public Health Service
(PHS)Act under Title XXVI, with the flexibility to respond effectively to the changing HIV epidemic. Its emphasis is on providing life-saving and life-extending services for people living with HIV/AIDS across the country, and on targeting resources to areas that have the greatest needs. All Program Parts of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program specify HRSA's responsibilities in the administration of grant funds, the allocation of funds, the evaluation of programs for the population served, and the improvement of the quality of care. Accurate records of the providers receiving Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding, the services provided, and the clients served continue to be critical to the implementation of the legislation and thus are necessary for HRSA to fulfill its responsibilities. Currently, the HIV/AIDS Bureau
(HAB)requires that all Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded grantees and their contracted service providers report aggregate data annually using the Ryan White Data Report. Agencies report data related to the service provider, clients, service visits provided/clients served, client demographics, and health insurance payments. The limitations of aggregate data are twofold: First, because they lack client identifiers, aggregate data by definition cannot be merged and unduplicated across service providers within a given geographic area. As a result, grantees, and ultimately HAB, cannot obtain accurate counts of the number of individuals served by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. Second, aggregate data cannot be analyzed with the detail that is required to assess quality of care or to sufficiently account for the use of Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funds. A well designed and supported client level data reporting system, using a unique identifier that will be encrypted before transfer, would provide the grantee and HRSA with the requisite information to assess quality of care and unmet needs, and the ability to more accurately and efficiently report these figures to HAB and other funding agencies. In addition, HAB will be able to characterize accurately the number of clients served by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and the outcomes of the program services on a national scale. The ability to perform detailed analyses will be possible only if organizations submit data associated with encrypted client identifiers. These unique identifiers must be able to link data for clients across Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded grantees and their subcontracted service providers. The CLDRS provides data on the characteristics of Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded grantees, their contracted service providers, and the clients being served with program funds. It is intended to support clinical quality management, performance measurement, service delivery, and client monitoring at both the system and client levels. The reporting system consists of two online data forms, the Grantee Information Form and the Service Provider Form. A data file containing the client level data elements will be submitted with the two online data forms on a semi-annual basis. The new legislation specifies increased grantee accountability and linking performance to budget. The CLDRS will be used to ensure compliance with the requirements of the reauthorized legislation, evaluate the progress of programs, monitor grantee and provider performance, measure the Government Performance and Result Act
(GPRA)and the Performance Assessment Rating Tool
(PART)goals, and meet reporting responsibilities to the Department, Congress, and OMB. In addition to meeting the goal of accountability to Congress, clients, advocacy groups, and the general public, information collected through the CLDRS is critical for HRSA, State and local grantees, and individual providers. Through the CLDRS, these groups will assess the status of existing HIV-related service delivery systems to investigate trends in service utilization, and to identify areas of greatest need. Discussions were conducted with 12 volunteer grantee agencies representing Parts A, B, C, D, and Minority AIDS Initiatives, Parts A and B, as a basis for the burden estimates for the CLDRS components that follow. These burden estimates are broken out by burden to grantee respondents and burden to provider respondents, and are presented in two tables. The first table represents the estimated burden for the first 6-month data submission. The second table represents the estimated burden for each subsequent 6-month data submission. The estimated number of visits per 6-month reporting period ranged from 1 to 17, with an average
(mean)of 4 client visits per reporting period and a median of 2 client visits per reporting period. The number of clients is estimated two ways. The first estimate is based on providers that reported outpatient/ambulatory medical care, medical case management, and/or non-medical case management services in the 2007 Ryan White Data Report. These providers will be required to report client level data beginning in 2009. This first estimate excludes providers of other direct client services because these providers will not be required to report client level data until 2010. The second estimate includes all providers that reported direct client services in the 2007 Ryan White Data Report. The estimated response burden for the first 6-month reporting period CLDRS submission is as follows: The response burden for grantees is estimated as: Component Source of funding Number of respondents Responses per grantee Hours to complete/coordinate receipt of data reports Total hour burden Grantee Form Part A 56 1 1.27 71 Part B 57 1 6.00 342 Part C 357 1 0.39 139 Part D 90 1 0.67 60 Part A MAI 56 1 1.27 71 Part B MAI 30 1 10.00 300 Subtotal 646 983 Component Number of respondents Responses per grantee Hours to develop/adjust CLD system Total hour burden CLD Collection System 563 1 1108.80 624254 The response burden for service providers is estimated as: Component Number of respondents Responses per provider Hours per response Total hour burden Provider Form 2253 1 2.35 5295 Component Number of respondents Responses (clients served) per provider Total responses Hours to collect/report data per respondent Total hour burden Client Data File * 1511 ** 2112 493.57 417.47 745784 881703 1.65 1.65 1230544 1454810 * Outpatient/ambulatory medical care, medical case management, and/or non-medical case management providers only. ** All providers. The estimated response burden for all subsequent 6-month reporting period CLDRS submissions is as follows: The response burden for grantees is estimated as: Component Source of funding Number of respondents Responses per grantee Hours to complete/coordinate receipt of data reports Total hour burden Grantee Form Part A 56 1 1.02 57 Part B 57 1 1.50 86 Part C 357 1 0.32 114 Part D 90 1 0.33 30 Part A MAI 56 1 1.02 57 Part B MAI 30 1 2.00 60 Subtotal 646 404 The response burden for service providers is estimated as: Component Number of respondents Responses per provider Hours per response Total hour burden Provider Form 2253 1 2.30 5182 Component Number of respondents Responses (clients served) per provider Total responses Hours to collect/report data per respondent Total hour burden Client Data File * 1511 ** 2112 493.57 417.47 745784 881703 1.65 1.65 1230544 1454810 * Outpatient/ambulatory medical care, medical case management, and/or non-medical case management providers only. ** All providers. E-mail comments to *paperwork@hrsa.gov* or mail comments to the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 10-33, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Information can also be accessed at *http://datasupport.hab.hrsa.gov/* . Dated: June 30, 2008. Alexandra Huttinger, Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. [FR Doc. E8-15470 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of 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 meetings of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine. The meetings 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 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:* Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine; Extramural Programs Subcommittee. *Date:* September 15, 2008. *Closed:* 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Conference Room B, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-496-6221, *lindberg@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine; Subcommittee on Outreach and Public Information. *Date:* September 16, 2008. *Open:* 7:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. *Agenda:* Outreach Activities. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Conference Room B, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-496-6221, * lindberg@mail.nih.gov.* *Name of Committee:* Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine. *Date:* September 16-17, 2008. *Open:* September 16, 2008, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. *Agenda:* Program Discussion. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Closed:* September 16, 2008, 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Open:* September 17, 2008, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* Program Discussion. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, Directorm National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-496-6221, * lindberg@mail.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. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, drivers license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Information is also available on the Institutes/Center's home page: *http://www.nlm.nih.gov/od/bor/bor.html,* where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 27, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15192 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; 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, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications. 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 intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Library of Medicine, 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, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications. *Date:* September 11-12, 2008. *Open:* September 11 2008, 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. *Agenda:* Review of research and development programs and preparation of the reports of the Lister Hill Center for Biomedical Communications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Closed:* September 11, 2008, 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Closed:* September 12, 2008, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Open:* September 12, 2008, 10 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. *Agenda:* Review of research and development programs and preparation of reports of the Lister Hill Center for Biomedical Communications. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike. *Contact Person:* Karen Steely, Program Assistant, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, Building 38a, Room 7s709, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3137, *ksteely@mail.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. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, drivers license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 27, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15188 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; 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, National Center for Biotechnology Information. 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 Library of Medicine, 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, National Center for Biotechnology Information. *Date:* November 18, 2008. *Open:* 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. *Agenda:* Program Discussion. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Closed:* 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Open:* 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. *Agenda:* Program discussion. *Place:* National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* David J. Lipman, MD Director, Natl Ctr for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, Department of Health and Human Services, Building 38a, Room 8n805, Bethesda, MD 20894, 301-435-5985, *dlipman@mail.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. In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 27, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15191 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Innovative Technology Solutions to Cancer Sample Preparation. *Date:* July 24, 2008. *Time:* 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications. *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call). *Contact Person:* Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd. Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-1822, *githenss@mail.nih.gov.* (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 26, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15464 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 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 associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. *Name of Committee:* National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Behavioral Mechanisms in Alcohol Seeking (RFA AA-08-0071008). *Date:* July 16, 2008. *Time:* 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. *Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications (RFA AA-08-007/008). *Place:* National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane Bethesda, MD 20892. *Contact Person:* Beata Buzas, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 3041 Rockville, MD 20852 301-443-0800, *bbuzas@mail.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. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: June 27, 2008. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. E8-15189 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2008-0070] Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY: Science and Technology Directorate, DHS. ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee Meeting. SUMMARY: The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee will meet July 15, 2008, at 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., in Washington, DC. DATES: The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee will meet July 15, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The mission of the Committee is to be a source of independent, scientific and technical planning advice for the Under Secretary for Science and Technology. The duties of the committee are solely advisory. The committee will meet for the purpose of discussing last year's Improvised Explosive Device study, and current committee efforts, and to solicit input from attendees on future efforts. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Requests to have written material distributed to each member of the committee prior to the meeting should reach the contact person at the address below by July 7, 2008. Send written material to Ms. Deborah Russell, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive, Bldg. 410, Washington, DC 20528. Comments must be identified by DHS-2008-0070 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: HSSTAC@dhs.gov* . Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 202-254-6173. • *Mail:* Ms. Deborah Russell, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive, Bldg. 410, Washington, DC 20528. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received by the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Russell, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive, Bldg. 410, Washington, DC 20528 202-254-5739. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). *Public Attendance:* Due to meeting space restrictions, the maximum number of public attendees will be 20. Members of the public will be registered to attend the public session on a first-come, first-served basis per the procedures that follow. Any member of the public who wishes to attend the public session must provide his or her name, citizenship and affiliation no later than 5 p.m. EST, Wednesday, July 9, 2008. Please provide the required information to Deborah Russell via phone at 202-254-5739. Persons with disabilities who require special assistance should indicate so in their admittance request. Photo identification will be required for entry into the public session, and everyone in attendance must be present and seated by 9 a.m. on July 15, 2008. Bradley Buswell, Deputy Under Secretary for Science and Technology. [FR Doc. E8-15448 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-526, Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur; OMB Control No. 1615-0026. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2008, at 73 FR 19860, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 7, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov* , and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* . Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of an existing information collection.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.
(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-526. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals and households. This form is used by the USCIS to determine if an alien can enter the U.S. to engage in commercial enterprise.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 1,368 responses at 1 hour and 15 minutes (1.25 hours) per response.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 1,710 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,
(202)272-8377. Dated: July 1, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-15395 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: File No. OMB-25, Special Immigrant Visas for Fourth Preference Employment-Based Broadcasters; OMB Control No. 1615-0064. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** on April 30, 2008, at 73 FR 23478, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments for this information collection. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 7, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov,* and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202-395-6974 or via e-mail at *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* . Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of an existing information collection.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Special Immigrant Visas for Fourth Preference Employment-Based Broadcasters.
(3)* Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* No Agency Form Number (File No. OMB-25). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary:* Individuals and households. The information collected via the submitted supplemental documentation (as contained in 8 CFR 204.13(d)) will be used by the USCIS to determine eligibility for the requested classification as fourth preference employment-based immigrant broadcasters.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 100 responses at 2 hours per response.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 200 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529,
(202)272-8377. Dated: July 1, 2008. Stephen Tarragon, Acting Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8-15396 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2008-N0140; 20124-1113-0000-F2] Balmorhea State Park Management Plan Habitat Conservation Plan, Reeves County, TX AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft low effect habitat conservation plan and permit application. SUMMARY: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Applicant) has applied for an incidental take permit (Permit) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended
(ESA)for the incidental take of the endangered Comanche Springs pupfish ( *Cyprinodon elegans* ) and Pecos gambusia ( *Gambusia nobilis* ), as well as the following candidate species: Phantom springsnail ( *Tryonia cheatumi* ), diminutive amphipod ( *Gammarus hyalleloides* ), and Phantom Lake Cave Snail ( *Cochliopa texana* ). The potential take would occur incidental to normal management activities at Balmorhea State Park (Park), Reeves County, Texas. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Persons wishing to review the EA/HCP may obtain a copy by written or telephone request to William Amy, Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 (512/490-0057, ext. 234). Documents will be available for public inspection by written request, or by appointment only during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), at the above Austin address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Amy, Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 (512/490-0057, ext. 234). *Applicant:* The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Applicant) has applied for an incidental take permit (Permit) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 153101544, 87 Stat. 884) (ESA), from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) for incidental take of the endangered Comanche Springs pupfish ( *Cyprinodon elegans* ) and Pecos gambusia ( *Gambusia nobilis* ), as well as the following species, which are candidates to be listed: Phantom springsnail ( *Tryonia cheatumi* ), diminutive amphipod ( *Gammarus hyalleloides* ), and Phantom Lake Cave Snail ( *Cochliopa texana* ). The potential take is incidental to management activities at Balmorhea State Park. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Comanche Springs pupfish and Pecos gambusia. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22. The Balmorhea State Park Management Plan HCP qualifies as a “Low Effect” HCP as defined in the Service Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Low Effect HCPs have relatively minor or negligible impacts. Therefore, this action is a categorical exclusion as provided by 516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1 and no further NEPA documentation is required. A determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy to the species will not be made until at least 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. We provide this notice under Section 10(c) of the ESA and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). Public Comments 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. Data or comments concerning the application and HCP should be submitted in writing to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office, Austin, Texas at the above address. Please refer to permit number TE-183172-0 when submitting comments. Christopher T. Jones, Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. [FR Doc. E8-15466 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2008-N0121; 10120-1112-0000-F2] Incidental Take Permit Application for Construction and Operation of Seven Meteorological Towers on Lanai, Hawaii AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; draft environmental assessment and habitat conservation plan; and receipt of application for an incidental take permit. SUMMARY: Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC (Applicant), has submitted an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The Applicant is requesting a permit because incidental take of four species listed under the ESA may occur as a result of construction and operation of seven meteorological towers on the island of Lanai, Hawaii: The endangered Hawaiian petrel ( *Pterodroma sandwichensis* ), endangered Hawaiian stilt ( *Himantopus mexicanus knudseni* ), endangered Hawaiian hoary bat ( *Lasiurus cinereus semotus* ), and the threatened Newell's (Townsend's) shearwater ( *Puffinus auricularis newelli* ). Six of the seven towers have already been constructed. If approved, the permit would authorize take, incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The permit application includes a draft Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)that describes the Applicant's actions and the measures the Applicant will implement to minimize, mitigate, and monitor take of listed species. The Service also announces the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA)that has been prepared in response to the permit application in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are making the permit application package available for public review and comment. DATES: All comments from interested parties must be received on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please address written comments to Patrick Leonard, Project Leader, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room #3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850. You may also send comments by facsimile at
(808)792-9580. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Standley, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES above), telephone
(808)792-9400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Documents The permit application, which includes a draft HCP and a draft EA, are available for public inspection, by appointment between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES above). You may also request copies of the documents by contacting the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on the proposed Federal action of issuing a permit, including the identification of any aspects of the human environment not already analyzed in our draft EA. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP relative to minimizing, mitigating, and monitoring the impacts of taking each of the covered listed species and relative adaptive management, as evaluated against our permit issuance criteria found in 50 CFR 13.21, 17.22, and 17.32. Pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA, the Service is making the permit application package available for public review and comment for 30 days for the purposes of the Federal action (see DATES section above). All comments received will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold their identity from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law. If you wish us to withhold your identity (e.g., individual name, home address, and home phone number), you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Background Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq* .) and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed fish and wildlife species. Incidental take is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. If issued, the permittee would receive assurances under the Service's “No Surprises” regulation. The Applicant has applied to the Service for an incidental take permit for the endangered Hawaiian petrel, endangered Hawaiian stilt, endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, and the threatened Newell's (Townsend's) shearwater (covered species), pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The Applicant has constructed six meteorological
(met)towers and they are proposing construction of a seventh met tower, on private land that they own. The activities proposed to be covered by the permit are the construction of the seventh met tower and the operation and maintenance of all seven towers. The met towers would be used for up to 2 years to collect data on wind patterns; these data would be used to assess the suitability of the wind regime to sustain a wind-turbine facility for electrical energy production. Each met tower is 165-feet-tall (50-meters-tall) and each rest on a steel base plate approximately 9 square feet (0.8 square meter) in size. Each met tower is supported with aircraft cable guy wires in four directions at each of six guy levels. The guy wire radius is 100 feet to 110 feet (30.5 to 33.5 meters). The guy wires are anchored with standard dead-man type anchors to a depth of 5 to 8 feet (1.5 to 2.4 meters). The met towers are located within a combined footprint area of approximately 13 acres (5.3 hectares). The activities proposed to be covered are the construction of one met tower and the maintenance and operation of seven met towers. No listed species are known to inhabit the area in the immediate vicinity of the towers, however, incidental take may occur via collision of individual animals flying through the air space occupied by the towers and guy wires. Removal of invasive plants in the mitigation area may also result in take in the form of disturbance of the covered species. Incidental take of covered species may occur as a result of these proposed covered activities. The Applicant proposes to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of taking listed species by implementing the following measures:
(1)Siting the towers as far from the island's Hawaiian petrel colony and Newell's shearwater nesting habitat as possible;
(2)marking towers and guy wires with bird diverters and flagging to increase visibility;
(3)monitoring towers for dead or injured birds and bats throughout the period they are operated;
(4)conducting predator control within the island's Hawaiian petrel colony, Newell's shearwater nesting habitat and hoary bat habitat;
(5)conducting predator control at the island's wastewater treatment plant where Hawaiian stilts nest; and
(6)removing invasive plants, primarily strawberry guava ( *Psidium cattleianum* ), to facilitate the re-establishment of native vegetation within forest habitat adjacent to the Hawaiian petrel colony and within Newell's shearwater and hoary bat habitat. Our EA considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action of permit issuance, including the measures that would be implemented to minimize and mitigate such impacts. The EA contains an analysis of three alternatives:
(1)No Action (no permit issuance and the met towers would be removed);
(2)the Proposed Action (with issuance of the permit and implementation of the HCP); and
(3)the use of monopole met towers. Under the third alternative, met towers that do not require the use of guy wires but require a much larger foundation would be constructed. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). The public process for the proposed Federal action will be completed after the public comment period, at which time we will evaluate the permit application, the HCP and associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and NEPA regulations. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue an incidental take permit to the Applicant. Dated: May 28, 2008. David J. Wesley, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. [FR Doc. E8-15417 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2008-N0098; 11120-0008-0221-F2] Safe Harbor Agreement for the Northern Spotted Owl for Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation, Humboldt County, CA AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability and receipt of application. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation (Applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an enhancement of survival permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The permit application includes a proposed Safe Harbor Agreement (Agreement) between the Applicant and the Service for the threatened northern spotted owl ( *Strix occidentalis caruina* ). The proposed Agreement and permit would remain in effect for 90 years. We request comments from the public on the permit application and an Environmental Action Statement that has been prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Mr. Michael Long, Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California 95521. You also may send comments by facsimile to
(707)822-8411. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Hunter ( ADDRESSES )
(707)822-7201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements, and the subsequent enhancement of survival permits that are issued pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species, by assuring property owners that they will not be subject to increased land use restriction as a result of efforts to attract or increase the numbers or distribution of a listed species on their property. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c) and 17.32(c). We have worked with the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation to develop a Safe Harbor Agreement for the creation and enhancement of habitat for the northern spotted owl on four Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation properties totaling 2,163 acres in Humboldt County, California. The term of the proposed Agreement is 90 years. Currently the properties support 1,730 acres of northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat and one northern spotted owl activity center. We anticipate that under the northern spotted owl habitat creation and enhancement timber management regime proposed in the Agreement, approximately 1,947 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and potentially up to five northern spotted owl activity centers could exist on the property at the end of 90 years. The proposed Safe Harbor Agreement does not provide for a return to baseline conditions at the end of the Agreement term. Instead, the Agreement provides that if more than five northern spotted owl activity centers should become established on the property during the 90 year term, the Applicant would be allowed to remove such additional activity centers during the Agreement period. Under the Agreement, Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation will:
(1)Conduct surveys annually to determine the locations and reproductive status of any northern spotted owls;
(2)protect up to five activity centers (locations where owls are observed nesting or roosting) with a no-harvest area that buffers the activity center by no less than 100 feet;
(3)utilize selective timber harvest methods such that suitable nesting habitat is maintained within 300 feet of each activity center;
(4)limit noise disturbance from timber harvest operations within 1,000 feet of an active nest during the breeding season; and
(5)manage all second growth redwood timber on the property in a manner that maintains or creates suitable nesting and roosting habitat over time. Consistent with our Safe Harbor Policy, we propose to issue a 90 year permit to Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation authorizing take of northern spotted owls incidental to timber harvest operations carried out in accordance with the habitat management provisions in the Agreement. Specifically, if more than five northern spotted owl activity centers become established on the property, take of northern spotted owls associated with the effects of timber harvest on such additional northern spotted owl activity centers would be authorized under the incidental take permit during the 90 year permit term. At the end of the 90 year Agreement and permit term, no further take of northern spotted owls would be allowed unless the Safe Harbor Agreement and incidental take permit are renewed or extended. The development and maintenance of high-quality habitat in a matrix of private timberland subject to even-aged management regimes will provide a relatively stable habitat condition that we believe will provide high productivity for multiple generations of spotted owls. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Agreement and the activities it covers, which are facilitated by the allowable incidental take, is expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the northern spotted owl. Public Review and Comments Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, the Environmental Action Statement, or copies of the full text of the Safe Harbor Agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area, references, and legal descriptions of the proposed permit area, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section. Documents will also be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at this office (see ADDRESSES ). We invite the public to review the Safe Harbor Agreement and Environmental Action Statement during a 30-day public comment period (see DATES ). 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 may 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. We provide this notice pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted therein to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of Section 10(a) of the Act and NEPA regulations. If, upon completion of the 30-day comment period, we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation for take of northern spotted owls incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Dated: June 12, 2008. Michael M. Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. [FR Doc. E8-15365 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AA-8101-08; AK-964-1410-KC-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving the subsurface estate in certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to The Aleut Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of Umnak Island, Alaska, and are located in: Seward Meridian, Alaska T. 78 S., R. 129 W., Secs. 1 to 23, inclusive; Secs. 26 to 33, inclusive. Containing approximately 19,658 acres. T. 79 S., R. 129 W., Secs. 4, 5, and 6. Containing approximately 1,905 acres. T. 79 S., R. 130 W., Secs. 1 to 6, inclusive; Secs. 8, 9, and 16. Containing approximately 5,745 acres. Aggregating approximately 27,308 acres. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Dutch Harbor Fisherman. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until August 7, 2008 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov* . Persons who use a telecommunication device
(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Hillary Woods, Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I. [FR Doc. E8-15412 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NV-025-1220-PC-020F; 8-08807; TAS: 14X1109] Final Supplementary Rules on Public Land in Humboldt, Pershing and Washoe Counties, NV AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Final Supplementary Rules. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)Winnemucca Field Office, Nevada, and Surprise Field Office, California, are issuing new supplementary rules for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA), associated designated wilderness, and other contiguous lands as identified in the 2004 Resource Management Plan
(RMP)and Record of Decision. These supplementary rules are needed to protect the area's natural and cultural resources and provide for public health and safety on public lands. These supplementary rules do not propose or implement any land use limitation or restrictions other than those limitations or restrictions included within the decisions in the RMP or allowed for by existing law or regulation. DATES: These supplementary rules are effective August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office, Attn: Dave Cooper, 1500 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445-2921. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Cooper, NCA Manager, 775-623-1500, e-mail *dave_cooper@nv.blm.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and associated wilderness was created by Congress on December 21, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-554). During a three and a half year planning process required by the enabling legislation, the BLM prepared a RMP for the NCA, associated wilderness and other contiguous lands. The RMP contains decisions that include additional limitations on public use within the RMP planning area. These supplementary rules are necessary to implement those limitations. On November 9, 2007 the BLM published proposed supplementary rules for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area, associated designated wilderness, and other contiguous lands in Nevada, requesting public review and comment. 72 FR 63625. II. Public Comment The comment period closed December 10, 2007. The BLM received one written response from a non-governmental organization. The comment was generally supportive of the proposed supplementary rules, but expressed concern about the complexity of the language and recommended brevity and simplicity. However the comment provided no specific examples of where the rules were too complex, nor were there suggestions as to where the proposed rules could be shortened or simplified. During the preparation of the RMP, the decisions which form the basis of the proposed rules were subject to public scrutiny and the wording was carefully chosen to be as clear and concise as possible. The comment also included two specific issues:
(1)The comment stated, “Damage to any vegetation should be prohibited in the front country zone.” This comment is related to Section 1, Rule 1 of these supplementary rules: “Unless posted or prohibited, you may pull off designated roads and trails a maximum of 50 feet from the center of the road/trail for parking or camping if damage to vegetation will be *minimal* and new parallel roads will not be created.” (emphasis added). The commenter's reasoning was that, because the word “minimal” was not defined in the proposed supplementary rule, visitors may view their impact on vegetation as minimal when in fact the damage may be significant. *BLM Response:* The term “front country zone” in the comment refers to portions of the planning area for which the RMP authorizes the highest levels of public use. (Section 2 of these supplementary rules includes a more detailed definition.) A rule prohibiting damage to “any” vegetation in the front country zone (for example, the trampling of a single blade of grass) would effectively prohibit public use of any areas away from designated roads and trails in that zone. This result would clearly be inconsistent with the decision of the RMP (section 2.2.2 Decision TRAN-11) to allow vehicle parking and camping within the front country zone. The RMP also contains a statement in section 2.2.20 Decision REC-5 which notes that: “Visitors will be encouraged to use existing disturbed areas for camping and pulling off roads and motorized trails to access camping areas, and will be required to leave vegetation intact.” In order to address the commenter's concerns, the BLM has added a definition of “minimal damage to vegetation” in section 2 of these supplementary rules to better clarify the intent of the rule while still providing for reasonable public uses of the area. The added definition states: “Minimal Vegetation Damage: Crushing by foot or vehicle tires or the physical removal with hand tools of herbaceous vegetation or woody vegetation less than 18 inches tall necessary for the parking of one or more motorized vehicles, establishment of a campsite, or providing for a safe campfire. The physical removal or damage of woody vegetation taller than 18 inches is considered more than minimal damage.”
(2)The comment stated, “Collecting of plants, rocks, or other items should be discouraged in the front country zone.” *BLM Response:* Rules 3 and 4 under Section 1 are related to collection of rocks and fossils: *Rule 3:* “You must not collect petrified wood, common invertebrate fossils, rocks or minerals with motorized equipment.” *Rule 4:* “You must not collect more than 25 pounds per day plus one piece, with a maximum collection of 250 pounds per year, of petrified wood. Similar limits apply to each of the following: Common invertebrate fossils, rocks, and minerals.” The front country zone encompasses about 121,245 acres of the RMP planning area. Approximately 88 percent of this area is associated with the barren playa of the Black Rock Desert. The remaining portions of the front country zone are areas adjacent to the playa or very small areas near Massacre Ranch, Stevens Camp and the Soldier Meadows hot springs. The front country zone is not known for rocks, petrified wood or invertebrate fossils sought by collectors. For this reason, the BLM does not see a need to further restrict the collection of rock or fossils in the front country zone. The BLM has also determined that the RMP, and the definition of “Minimal Damage to Vegetation” in these supplementary rules, adequately addresses the collection of plants in the front country zone. The most common type of collection of vegetative matter that occurs within the front country zone is firewood collection associated with removal of brush within short distances of campsites. The collection of plants associated with botanical research or removal of plants for horticultural use is very limited within the entire planning area. The RMP in sections 2.2.20 contains decisions related to the collection of plant materials and camping within the front country zone: Decision REC-19 (2.2.20) states: “Cutting of green or standing trees in the planning area will be prohibited, and wood collection may be further restricted in sensitive habitat areas or where resources have been depleted.” Decision REC-6 establishes that camping within the front country zone will only be allowed at designated sites. Decision REC-7 provides that where monitoring data shows that camping is causing resource damage, camping can be restricted or eliminated. These two decisions give the BLM control over where visitors camp within the front country zone, and the ability to eliminate or restrict camping where resource impacts, including over collection of firewood, might occur in the future. Moreover, these supplementary rules prohibit the physical removal or damage of woody vegetation taller than 18 inches, and the collection of more wood than is necessary for a safe campfire. The BLM sees no need to further restrict the collection of plants in the front country zone. III. Discussion of Rules These supplementary rules apply to the public lands within the boundary of the planning area for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area, associated wilderness, and other contiguous lands as set forth in the RMP. The BLM has determined these supplementary rules to be necessary to protect the area's natural and cultural resources, to provide for public health and safety, reduce user conflict, enhance the experience of the visitor, and reduce the potential for damage to the environment. These supplementary rules do not propose or implement any land use limitations or restrictions other than those limitations or restrictions included within the decisions in the RMP or allowed for by existing law or regulation. Some of these supplementary rules make reference to designated camping areas, routes, trails and management zones. Those designations were developed as part of the collaborative resource management planning process for the NCA, associated wilderness, and other contiguous lands in Nevada, which resulted in adoption of the plan in July 2004. A map showing the lands to which these rules apply, which is all lands within the planning area, can be found in the RMP at Section 1.3 and as shown at Map 1.1, or can be obtained at the address listed above. IV. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review These supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. These supplementary rules will result in an annual cost of much less than $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. These supplementary rules will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. These supplementary rules do not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. They impose rules of conduct and impose other limitations on certain recreational activities within the NCA, associated wilderness, and other contiguous lands in Nevada to protect natural and cultural resources and human health and safety. Clarity of the Supplementary Rules Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. A comment was received stating that the proposed supplementary rules were too complex and encouraged brevity and simplicity. However, the commenter did not suggest where the rules were too complex or suggest ways they could be simplified. The commenter did point out that the word “minimal” in one rule was not defined and that lack of a definition could lead to confusion among visitors, and could result in damage to vegetation. As a result of that comment, the BLM added a definition of “minimal vegetation damage” to the final rule. National Environmental Policy Act The BLM prepared an environmental impact statement as part of the development of the RMP. During that National Environmental Policy Act process, many proposed decisions were fully analyzed, including the substance of these supplementary rules. The pertinent analysis can be found in Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area
(NCA)and Associated Wilderness, and Other Contiguous Lands in Nevada, September 2003. The Record of Decision for the RMP was signed by the BLM State Directors of Nevada and California on July 15, 2004. These supplementary rules provide for enforcement of plan decisions. The rationale for the decisions made in the plan is fully covered in the EIS. The EIS is available for review in the BLM administrative record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. These supplementary rules pertain to recreational use of specific public lands, and do not affect commercial or governmental entities of any size. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that these supplementary rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and do not necessitate preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act These supplementary rules do not constitute a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). They will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, in a major increase in costs or prices, or in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. They will merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities in the NCA, associated wilderness and contiguous lands to protect natural and cultural resources, the environment, and human health and safety. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et. seq., requires an assessment of unfunded mandates on state, local or tribal governments. These supplementary rules do not impose any unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rules also will not have a significant or unique effect on small governments. They restrictions on certain recreational activities in the NCA, associated wilderness, and contiguous lands to protect natural and cultural resources, the environment and human health and safety. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the UMRA. Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) These supplementary rules are not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The rules will have no effect on private lands or property. Therefore, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules will not cause a taking of private property or require preparation of a takings assessment under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism These supplementary rules will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. These supplementary rules will have little or no effect on state or local government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules will not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments These supplementary rules provide for enforcement of decisions adopted in the Record of Decision and thoroughly analyzed in the EIS prepared for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area associated wilderness, and other contiguous lands in Nevada. During preparation of the EIS, government-to-government consultation was conducted with the six tribal governments with interests in the affected area. None of these tribal governments expressed concerns regarding the decisions these supplementary rules are designed to enforce. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that these supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications. Paperwork Reduction Act These supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* . Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use These supplementary rules do not comprise a significant energy action. They will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies, production, or consumption. They address recreational use of specific public lands, and have no connection with energy policy. Author The author of these supplementary rules is Dave Cooper, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office. Supplementary Rules for the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and Associated Wilderness, and Other Contiguous Lands in Nevada: Under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the Bureau of Land Management establishes the following supplementary rules on all public lands within the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and Associated Wilderness, and Other Contiguous Lands in Nevada Resource Management Plan
(RMP)boundary as shown in the RMP at Section 1.3 and as shown at Map 1.1, RMP Reference Map. Section 1, Prohibited Acts/Rules 1. Unless posted or prohibited, you may pull off designated roads and trails a maximum of 50 feet from the center of the road/trail for parking or camping if damage to vegetation will be minimal and new parallel roads will not be created. 2. You must not possess, destroy, deface, dig, or remove petrified wood, common invertebrate fossils, rocks or minerals without a permit in an area otherwise closed to collecting these resources. 3. You must not collect petrified wood, common invertebrate fossils, rocks or minerals with motorized equipment. 4. You must not collect more than 25 pounds per day plus one piece, with a maximum collection of 250 pounds per year, of petrified wood, common invertebrate fossils, rocks, and minerals. 5. You must not rock climb within the boundaries of the High Rock Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 6. You must not camp with a vehicle anywhere other than in designated sites in the following areas: High Rock Canyon ACEC, the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Area, Class A and B trail segments of the Emigrant Trails, Stevens Camp, Trego Hot Springs, Massacre Ranch and Mud Meadows areas, and the front country management zone with the exception of the Black Rock Desert playa. 7. You must not build, maintain or use a campfire on the Black Rock Desert playa or adjacent dune areas without the use of a surface protecting device. 8. You must not camp outside designated sites within the Soldier Meadows ACEC. 9. You must not camp within 100 yards of a water hole in such a manner that wildlife or domestic stock will be denied access to such water, unless campsites are designated by the BLM within this 100 yard area. 10. An authorization by the authorized officer, whether by permit or other written means to use public lands in the NCA, associated wilderness, and other contiguous lands, may contain reasonable restrictions necessary to preserve and protect public lands and their resources, and to minimize interference with and inconvenience to other visitors. You must follow the terms, conditions, and stipulations of your authorization. Section 2, Definitions *Camping* —Erecting a tent or a shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, or parking of a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer for the purpose or apparent purpose of overnight occupancy. *Camp with a vehicle* —Parking of a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer for the purpose or apparent purpose of overnight occupancy within one-fourth mile of the parked vehicle, motor home, or trailer. *Common invertebrate fossil* —Any fossilized marine life form without a spinal column, including but not limited to snails, corals, diatoms, and clams. *Designated site* —Specific location identified by the BLM for camping or other purposes. *Designated roads and trails* —Roads and trails open to motorized vehicle use and identified on a map of designated roads and trails that is maintained and available for public inspection at the Winnemucca Field Office, Winnemucca, Nevada and the Surprise Field Office, Cedarville, California. Designated roads and motorized trails are open to public use in accordance with such limits and restrictions as are or may be specified in the RMP or in future decisions implementing the RMP. However, any road or trail with any restrictive signing or physical barrier, including gates, posts, branches, or rocks intended to prevent use of the road or trail is not a designated motorized road or motorized trail. *Management zone* —The three administrative designations (Front Country, Rustic, and Wilderness) into which the NCA, associated wilderness, and contiguous lands have been divided for management purposes as depicted on the Visitor Use Management Zones Map (RMP, map 2-13). Each management zone has a unique set of objectives and management decisions as described below. • *Front country zone* —A management zone encompassing those lands that are intended to be the focal point for visitation where visitor accommodations would be made to provide primary interpretation, overlooks, trails, and associated facilities necessary to highlight resources and features of the NCA. • *Rustic zone* —Those lands that are intended to provide an undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor experience while accommodating motorized and mechanized access on designated routes, and where facilities are rare and provided only where essential for resource protection. • *Wilderness zone* —Those lands that are intended to provide an undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor experience without motorized or mechanized access and where facilities are nonexistent. *Minimal vegetation damage* —rushing by foot or vehicle tires or the physical removal with hand tools of herbaceous vegetation or woody vegetation less than 18 inches tall necessary for the parking of one or more motorized vehicles, establishment of a campsite, or providing for a safe campfire. The physical removal or damage of woody vegetation taller than 18 inches is considered more than minimal damage. *Motorized equipment* —Any machine that uses or is activated by a motor, engine, or other non-living power source. *Motorized vehicle* —Any vehicle that is self-propelled by a non-living power source, including electric power, but not operated upon rails or upon water. *Rock climbing* —Ascending or descending a rock face using rope and devices such as pitons, bolts, chocks, camming devices and webbing. *Surface protecting device* —A device to prevent campfires from coming into direct contact with the ground surface, such as an elevated platform, open grill, fire blanket, or fire pan for the purpose of preventing fire scars on the surface of the Black Rock Desert playa. *Vehicle* —Every device in, upon, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on land, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or track. *Water hole* —Any source of drinking water for livestock, wildlife, wild horses, and burros including but not limited to wildlife guzzlers, stock tanks, watering troughs, natural springs, and seeps. Penalties Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7 and 8365.1-6, violation of any of these supplementary rules on public lands within the boundaries established in the rules, may result in a trial before a United States Magistrate and may be punishable by a fine of no more than $1,000, or imprisonment for no more than 12 months, or both. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided by 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(5). Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Dated: May 9, 2008. Ron Wenker, BLM State Director, Nevada. Dated: May 7, 2008. Mike Pool, BLM State Director, California. [FR Doc. E8-15172 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW143963] Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)received a petition for reinstatement from Prima Exploration, Inc., Gunlikson Petroleum, Inc., and Niwot Resources, LLC for competitive oil and gas lease WYW143963 for land in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at
(307)775-6176. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this **Federal Register** notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and
(e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW143963 effective February 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands. Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. [FR Doc. E8-15423 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-030-1430-FR; WYW 0323440] Notice of Realty Action: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification of Public Lands in Carbon County, WY AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)has examined and found suitable for classification for conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, approximately 140 acres of public land in Carbon County, Wyoming. The City of Rawlins proposes to continue the use of the land as the Rawlins landfill. DATES: Interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed conveyance or classification of the lands until *August 22, 2008.* ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Field Manager, Rawlins Field Office, 1300 North Third Street, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Madigan, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office, at
(307)328-4200. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, (43 U.S.C. 315f), and Executive Order No. 6910, the following described public land in Carbon County, Wyoming, has been examined and found suitable for classification for conveyance under the provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended, (43 U.S.C. 869 *et seq.* ): Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming T. 22 N., R. 87 W., Sec. 34, N 1/2 SE 1/4 E 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ,SE 1/4 SE 1/4 . The land described contains 140 acres, more or less. The above described public land was previously classified for lease only under the R&PP Act on August 22, 1966, and has been leased to the City of Rawlins for landfill purposes since December 15, 1966. In accordance with the R&PP Act, the City of Rawlins filed an application for the above-described 140 acres of public land to be conveyed to Rawlins for continued use as the Rawlins landfill. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plan is in case file WYW 0323440, located in the BLM Rawlins Field Office at the above address. The land is not needed for any Federal purpose. The conveyance is consistent with the Rawlins Resource Management Plan and would be in the public interest. The patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States: 1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and 2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The patent will be subject to all valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of patent issuance. On August 22, 1966, the land described above was segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws. The conveyance classification continues the existing segregative effect. *Classification Comments:* Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for a landfill. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs. *Application Comments:* Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to convey under the R&PP Act, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for R&PP use. *Confidentiality of Comments:* 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. Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail to the Field Manager—BLM Rawlins Field Office will be considered properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile or telephone comments will not be considered properly filed. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective September 8, 2008. The lands will not be available for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective. Authority: 43 CFR part 2740. Dated: June 18, 2008. Patrick Madigan, Field Manager, Rawlins, WY. [FR Doc. E8-15366 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Alaska OCS Region, Cook Inlet Planning Area, Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 211 for OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012 AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Request for Interest. SUMMARY: The OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012 identifies two potential “special-interest” sales for the Cook Inlet Planning Area in Alaska. The Cook Inlet area is a proven oil and gas province, but past industry interest in the federal offshore area has been limited. The amount of oil and gas produced in Cook Inlet continues to decline and with changing economic conditions there is renewed interest in finding additional hydrocarbon resources for the South Central Alaska. This Request for Information
(RFI)seeks to determine the level of industry interest, whether it is focused on a few blocks or prospects or if there is industry interest in a larger portion of the planning area. We are also seeking comments from tribal, local, State, and Federal agencies, and the general public to evaluate whether MMS should proceed with further evaluations pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)and all other applicable laws and regulations. We will consider the level of industry interest and other issues and concerns reflected in comments in our determination on how to proceed. The decision to proceed with further evaluation of this special interest sale or to issue another RFI in 2009 will be made after consideration of the comments received and the indication of industry interest in response to this RFI. This RFI does not indicate a preliminary decision to lease in the Program Area. DATES: Responses to the RFI on proposed Cook Inlet Sale 211 must be received no later than October 6, 2008. Submittals should be labeled “Comments on Proposed Special-Interest Sale 211.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Dr. Cleve Cowles, Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5820, phone
(907)334-5233, regarding questions on the RFI for this special interest sale. Request for Information 1. *Authority:* This RFI is published pursuant to the OCSLA as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, (1994)), and the regulations issued thereunder (30 CFR 256); and in accordance with the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. 2. *Purpose of RFI:* This RFI seeks to determine the level of industry interest; whether it is focused on a few blocks or prospects; or if there is industry interest in a larger portion of the planning area. We are also seeking comments from tribal, local, State, and Federal agencies and the general public to evaluate whether MMS should proceed with further evaluations pursuant to the OCSLA, NEPA, ESA, Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)and all other applicable laws and regulations. This information-gathering step is important for ensuring that all pertinent information is provided in response to this RFI so it can be assessed in determining whether to proceed with further evaluation of the “special-interest” leasing process pursuant to the OCSLA and regulations at 30 CFR part 256 or whether MMS should reissue another RFI in 2009. A “special-interest” leasing option allows MMS to consider for further evaluation a very focused (or larger) area of the Cook Inlet Program Area. If companies are interested, they should identify the specific blocks of interest to MMS in writing to the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, ATTN: Cook Inlet RFI, Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Ste. 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823. If companies believe a larger area should be considered, they should explicitly explain their interest, including a summary of the geologic and economic information about the larger area. This letter of interest may include maps, and should include a company contact name, address, and phone number(s) if MMS needs additional information or clarification. As part of this information gathering request, we are also seeking comments and supporting information from tribal, local, State, and Federal agencies and the general public to determine whether MMS should consider any further evaluation of a focused area or larger portion of the Cook Inlet Program Area pursuant to the OCSLA and other applicable laws and regulations. After the 90-day RFI comment period closes, MMS will decide whether to continue the process after considering the comments received. If industry interest reflected in comments to the RFI does not support further evaluation at this time a RFI will be issued again in 2009 and yearly thereafter through the 5-year schedule until a sale is held or the 5-year schedule expires. If sufficient industry interest is received during the RFI process, including nominations of specific blocks in response to the RFI and after reviewing and considering the other information provided, MMS may recommend to the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management
(ASLM)whether the sale process should be continued as well as the size of the area to be considered for further evaluation (Area Identification). Following Area Identification, the Alaska OCS Region will prepare the appropriate NEPA analysis of potential environmental effects of oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the proposed sale area and its vicinity. 3. *Background and Description of the Area:* Four Federal sales have been held in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. In October 1977, Sale CI resulted in 88 leases being issued. In September 1981, Sale 60 resulted in 13 leases being issued. A reoffering sale, Sale RS-2, was held in August 1982, but no bids were received and no leases resulted from this sale. Sale 149, held in June 1997 resulted in 2 leases issued. In June 2002, the Department of the Interior issued the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2002-2007. Two Cook Inlet Sales, 191 and 199, were included. The EIS for Sales 191 and 199 was issued in December 2002, and all other pre-sale steps completed by early 2004. The sale was scheduled for May 2004. However, no bids were submitted for Sale 191. The MMS issued other solicitations to determine industry interest in Cook Inlet, but company interest remained low. Lease Sale 199 was canceled. Over the years, there have been 13 exploratory wells drilled on Federal leases in Cook Inlet and all have been permanently plugged and abandoned. Two leases from Sale 149 (part of the Cosmopolitan Unit) are under suspension of operations. Exploration activities for the unit are occurring from onshore. The Alaska OCS Region document “Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska Federal Offshore, December 2006 Update” estimates the mean undiscovered technically recoverable resources for the planning area at 1.01 billion barrels of oil and condensate and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/reports/2006Asmt/index.HTM.* The Cook Inlet Program Area is located offshore the State of Alaska just south of Kalgin Island and the Barren Islands and continues south through Shelikof Strait to just above the southern tip of Kodiak Island (see attached map). The Cook Inlet Program Area consists of approximately 1,093 whole and partial blocks covering about 2.1 million hectares (about 5.3 million acres). It extends offshore from 3 to approximately 60 nautical miles in water depths from about 30 feet to approximately 650 feet. A page-size map of the Program Area accompanies this RFI. A large scale RFI map showing the boundaries of the Program Area on a block-by-block basis is available on the MMS Web site at *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/cproject/cookinlet211/index.htm.* Official Protraction Diagrams numbers located in the Cook Inlet Planning Area are identified on both the page-sized and large-scale Call maps available for no charge at the Web site: *http://www.mms.gov/ld/alaska.htm.* 4. *Instructions on RFI:* Specific nominations demonstrating industry interest are being sought regarding the oil and gas industry area(s) of interest for potential exploration and development and production. Comments on the RFI are requested concerning any environmental, social, or economic information or issues commenters believe will assist the MMS in making its decision. Responses to this RFI must be received by October 6, 2008. Submittals should indicate “Responses to RFI for Proposed Cook Inlet Special-Interest Lease Sale 211.” The RFI Map nominations and specific indications of interest, and/or comments must be submitted to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment as noted below. The RFI may be submitted by any one of the following methods: • Mail or hand-deliver comments to the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment; ATTN: Cook Inlet RFI; Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service; 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500; Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823. • Submit comments by Internet through MMS Public Connect at *http://ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/.* • Fax comments to the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment; Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service at
(907)334-5242. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, please contact us directly at 1-800-764-2627. Company comments about specific levels of interest and/or specific areas of interest will be considered proprietary and confidential information, although the identities of those submitting nominations become a matter of public record. To avoid inadvertent release of proprietary information, please mark all documents “Confidential—Contains Proprietary Information” on every page containing such information. Respondents are requested to comment on the area of the Federal boundaries of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Respondents should rank areas in which they have nominations according to priority of interest; for example, priority 1
(high)or 2 (medium) on a large-sale RFI map available at *http://www.mms.gov/cproject/cookinlet211/index.htm.* Respondents are encouraged to be specific in indicating blocks by priority and be prepared to discuss their range of interest and activity regarding the nominated area(s). Please provide the telephone number and name of a person to contact in the organization's response. The Alaska OCS Regional Office may contact this person to set up a mutually agreeable meeting to more fully review the company's level of interest. Comments and information are sought from all interested parties about particular geological (including natural hazard areas), environmental, biological, archaeological, and socioeconomic conditions or potential conflicts, or other information that might bear upon the potential leasing, exploration, and development of the program area and vicinity. Comments and information are also sought on possible conflicts between future OCS oil and gas activities that may result from the proposed sale and the standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(CMP)and the enforceable policies of an approved local district coastal management plan. These comments should identify specific CMP policies of concern, the nature of the conflict foreseen, and steps that MMS could take to avoid or mitigate the potential conflict. Comments may be in terms of broad areas or restricted to particular blocks or areas of concern. Those submitting comments and information are requested to list block numbers or outline the subject area on the RFI Map. Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Any specific information submitted by industry about their interest will remain proprietary when marked as such. 5. *Use of RFI Information:* Information submitted in response to this RFI will be used for several purposes. Responses will be used to: —Determine whether to proceed with the leasing process for a special-interest oil and gas lease sale in the Cook Inlet Program Area; —Identify specific areas of interest for oil and/or gas exploration and development; —Identify potential environmental effects and potential use conflicts; —Develop the appropriate level of environmental analysis needed if the level of industry interest is such that MMS recommends proceeding with the special-interest sale; —Develop lease terms and conditions/mitigating measures; and —Identify potential conflicts between oil and gas activities and the Alaska CMP. 6. *Existing Information:* An extensive environmental, social, and economic Studies Program has been underway in the Alaska OCS Region since 1976, including studies in this area. The emphasis has been on environmental characterization of biologically sensitive habitats, endangered whales and marine mammals, physical oceanography, ocean-circulation modeling, subsistence uses, and ecological and socio-cultural effects of oil and gas activities. Environmental Impact Statements were prepared for each of the OCS sales held in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Information on the MMS Environmental Studies Program, completed studies, and a program status report for continuing studies in this area are available on the MMS Web site *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* , or may be obtained from the Chief, Environmental Studies Section, Alaska OCS Region, by telephone request at
(907)334-5230, or by written request to: Chief, Environmental Studies Section; ATTN: Cook Inlet RFI; Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management Service; 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500; Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5823. A request may also be made via the Alaska OCS Region Web site to *akwebmaster@mms.gov* . BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P EN08JY08.005 Dated: June 13, 2008. Randall B. Luthi, Director, Minerals Management Service. [FR Doc. E8-15444 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-C DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Drafting of U.S. Nominations to the World Heritage List AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Second Notice and Request for Comment SUMMARY: This notice constitutes the Second Notice referred to in Sec. 73.7(c) of the World Heritage Program regulations (36 CFR Part 73), and sets forth the decision to request that draft World Heritage nominations for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii, and Mount Vernon, Virginia, be prepared. On March 19, 2008, the Department of the Interior requested public comment on whether any properties identified on the U.S. Tentative List should be nominated to the World Heritage List, and in particular whether Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii, and Mount Vernon, Virginia, should be nominated. After review of the comments provided by the public and consultation with the Federal Interagency Panel on World Heritage, the Department, in accordance with 36 CFR part 73, has selected Papahanaumokuakea National Monument and Mount Vernon as proposed nominations to the World Heritage List. With the assistance of the Department, the owners of these sites are encouraged to prepare complete nomination documents for the sites in accordance with 36 CFR Part 73 and the nomination format required by the World Heritage Committee. A discussion of the decision and comments received follows. DATES: Draft World Heritage nominations for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Mount Vernon must be prepared and submitted in substantially complete draft form to the National Park Service by July 15, 2008. (The World Heritage nomination format may be found at the World Heritage Centre Web site at *http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominationform.* ) The National Park Service will coordinate the review and evaluation of the draft nominations. Submission of interim draft nominations to the World Heritage Centre must be made by September 30, 2008. The Centre is to provide technical comments by November 14, 2008. The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage will review draft nominations in a phone conference tentatively scheduled for November 19, 2008. The Interagency Panel will evaluate the adequacy of the nominations, the significance of the properties and whether the nominations should be forwarded to the World Heritage Centre to be considered for listing. Final submittal to the World Heritage Centre by the Department of the Interior through the Department of State is required by January 30, 2009, if the properties are to be considered in the current cycle of nominations to the World Heritage List. Submittal of final nominations must be made no later than that date for the World Heritage Committee to be able to consider them at its annual meeting in the summer of 2010. Protective measures must be in place before a property may be nominated. If a nomination cannot be completed in accordance with this timeline, work may continue into the following year(s) for subsequent submission to UNESCO. The public is invited to comment on the decision to nominate the two sites up to and including 30 days from the publication of this notice. ADDRESSES: Please provide all additional comments directly to Jonathan Putnam, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW.,
(0050)Washington, DC 20005 or by E-mail to: *jonathan_putnam@nps.gov* . Phone: 202-354-1809. Fax 202-371-1446. All comments will be a matter of public record and, if received in a timely manner, will be shared with property owners to assist in preparing the World Heritage nominations. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Putnam, 202-354-1809 or April Brooks, 202-354-1808. For summary information on the U.S. Tentative List and how it was developed, please see the March 19, 2008, **Federal Register** notice (Volume 73, Number 54, pages 14835-14838). Complete information about U.S. participation in the World Heritage Program and the process used to develop the Tentative List is posted on the Office of International Affairs Web site at: *http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/tentativelist.htm.* Only the 14 properties currently included in U.S. Tentative List are eligible to be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. Brief descriptions of the properties appear in a copy of the press release announcing the Tentative List, which is linked to the site just noted above. The U.S. Tentative List report on the 14 sites in the form submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on January 24, 2008, appears in its entirety on the Internet at *http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/tentativelist/WHTentList.doc.* The full applications submitted to the National Park Service for the candidate sites can be viewed at *http://www.nps.gov/oia/NewWebpages/ApplicantsTentativeList.html.* ) To request paper copies of documents discussed in this notice, please contact April Brooks, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW.,
(0050)Washington, DC 20005. E-mail: *April_Brooks@nps.gov* . *Summary of Public Comments:* On March 19, 2008, the Department published the new Tentative List, which consists of properties that appear to qualify for World Heritage status and which may be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List, in the **Federal Register** (Volume 73, Number 54, pages 14835-14838), along with the request for public comment on the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Mount Vernon, and the twelve other sites on the List. Comments were accepted through April 3, fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice in the **Federal Register** . Respondents were asked to address the qualifications of the Tentative List properties for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. A summary of the 19 public comments on the proposal to prepare nominations of sites from the Tentative List in 2008 appears below, along with the Department's responses as appropriate. The comments were also available to the Federal Interagency Panel on World Heritage and to the Department of the Interior officials who have selected the initial U.S. World Heritage nominations. The full texts of all the comments are available upon request. In some cases, respondents offered site-specific or general comments that addressed other issues, such as the merits of particular properties and advice on and priorities for revision of the Tentative List. Those comments have been retained and will remain on file to be considered in due course. Sites on the Tentative List for which no specific comments were received regarding their nomination this year are not discussed. Cultural Sites Mount Vernon, Virginia The Accokeek Foundation, a Virginia State Senator and two members of the Virginia House of Delegates expressed their strong support of the proposed nomination. US/ICOMOS expressed doubts about the prospects that the World Heritage Committee will find that the Mount Vernon site meets the World Heritage criteria. The Department acknowledges this concern and has provided Mount Vernon management with the comments. Poverty Point National Monument and State Historic Site, Louisiana Four Members of Congress wrote to recommend that this site be nominated this year. The Department believes that the two other sites being proposed for this year would better diversify the portfolio of United States sites. US/ICOMOS recommended that this site be considered as part of a serial or joint nomination with other similar sites. San Antonio Franciscan Missions, Texas The San Antonio Conservation Society wrote in strong support of this site being nominated. US/ICOMOS proposed this site as an alternative nomination to Mount Vernon. The Department will consider this recommendation for future years. One respondent expressed concerns about the name of this proposed nomination and desires that the Native American role at the missions be fully and sensitively emphasized in any nomination, including in its name. This recommendation will be taken into account. Another respondent expressed his concern that the Alamo not come under United Nations authority. The United Nations does not have any role in the management of existing or potential U.S. World Heritage sites. Mixed Natural and Cultural Site Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii Strongly supportive comments for this site were received from US/ICOMOS, the Trust for Public Land and several individuals. US/ICOMOS also recommended that consideration be given to treatment of the Battle of Midway and its associated shipwrecks and aircraft. This important history will be included in appropriate descriptive and historical sections of the nomination but will not be treated as a primary basis for nomination under the World Heritage cultural criteria. The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) recommended that Papahanaumokuakea not be nominated, based on their concerns that World Heritage designation would lead to increased tourism and associated impacts on the Monument's natural resources. The Department understands that the Monument does not plan to increase visitation to the site, nor does World Heritage designation require public access. WPRFMC also expressed concerns about the National Park Service becoming involved in the management of the Monument. The National Park Service will not be involved in the Monument's management. WPRFMC requested additional time for comment and stated doubts regarding the extent of support in Hawaii for the proposed nomination. The Department anticipates that the co-trustees of the Monument (the State of Hawaii, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will address the concerns raised by the WPRFMC during the balance of the year as the World Heritage nomination is being prepared. Also, as noted elsewhere, the National Park Service will continue to take comments on the two proposed draft nominations up to and including 30 days from the publication of this notice. Recommendations of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage The Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage assists the Department of the Interior in implementing the Convention by making recommendations on U.S. World Heritage policy, procedures, and nominations. The Panel is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and includes representatives from various Federal Departments and agencies with Federal land management and policymaking responsibilities. The Panel made its recommendations to the Department on the U.S. Tentative List in a conference call on April 8, 2008. The Panel agreed by consensus to support the preparation of a nomination this year for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. It took note of the comments and concerns raised by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and were informed that those comments would be shared with the co-trustees of the site who intend to draft a nomination. Regarding Mount Vernon, the Panel acknowledged that it shared the concerns voiced by a few public respondents about the prospects for completing a nomination of Mount Vernon this year that would successfully address the World Heritage criteria. The World Heritage Committee's practice of generally discouraging the listing of sites associated with prominent individuals was referenced in that regard. It was agreed that those concerns would be shared with the Mount Vernon staff who are working on the proposed nomination. It was also noted that the property has considerable importance as an historic landscape important in colonial history and as a prime illustration of plantation life and economy, but that more documentation may be needed to establish its preeminence in that regard. After discussion, the Panel concurred in the effort to draft a nomination for Mount Vernon. The Panel reviewed the public suggestions for nominations for other properties this year from the U.S. Tentative List but did not recommend the preparation of nominations for any additional or alternate properties. It was acknowledged that, although the United States is eligible to nominate two sites this year, it might be preferable to submit only one nomination. Panel members emphasized concern that it would be undesirable to have any of the first nominations made by the United States since 1994 be unsuccessful. The Panel's next meeting this fall (tentatively scheduled for November 19, 2008) will review and recommend on draft nominations for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and Mount Vernon, if they are completed on schedule. In addition, in response to certain public comments and the opinions of Panel members, the Panel agreed to place the topic of the process for future revisions of the U.S. Tentative List, noting specific comments in that regard by US/ICOMOS, on the agenda for the Panel's next meeting. Decision To Encourage the Preparation of Two U.S. World Heritage Nominations The Department considered both public comments received during the comment period and the advice of the Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage in making the decisions to draft two U.S. World Heritage nominations. Both properties meet the initial prerequisites for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. They appear to meet one or more of the World Heritage criteria and all owners support the nomination of these nationally significant properties to the World Heritage List. Brief descriptions are provided for these potential nominations. The Department will make final decisions on whether to nominate these two sites to the World Heritage List based on complete draft World Heritage nominations for them. The Department encourages all interested parties to comment and make recommendations as the nomination process continues. Draft World Heritage nominations will be requested for the following sites: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii This 1,200-mile-long string of islands, atolls, coral reefs and adjacent waters, running northwest from the main Hawaiian islands and encompassing over 89 million acres, is one of the world's largest and most significant marine protected areas. Scattered in the deep ocean are some 10 small islands along with extensive reefs and shoals. In this remote and still relatively pristine part of the Pacific, marine life flourishes, and the area is home to a large number of species found nowhere else in the world, including a wide array that are threatened and endangered. Large populations of seabirds nest on isolated sandy shores and the waters harbor impressive numbers of large predatory fish. The geology of the islands is also highly significant—the chain represents the longest, clearest, and oldest example of island formation and atoll evolution in the world. Native Hawaiians reached these islands at least 1,000 years before any other people and established settlements on some of them. The islands, along with their significant archeological sites, retain great cultural and spiritual significance to Native Hawaiians. Midway Atoll and its environs was also the site of a major battle of World War II. Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is selected for nomination because, among other factors, it will, as a marine site and a mixed cultural and natural site in the Pacific, fill conspicuous gaps in the United States portfolio of World Heritage Sites. Similar gaps likewise exist in the World Heritage List as a whole, wherein few marine, Pacific, or mixed sites are listed. Its merits on both cultural and natural criteria are regarded as particularly outstanding. In addition, its co-trustees (the State of Hawaii, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) strongly support its nomination and have assembled a team to prepare the documentation. Mount Vernon, Virginia George Washington's long-time home, with its associated gardens and grounds, forms a remarkably well-preserved and extensively documented example of a plantation landscape of the 18th-century American South. Mount Vernon also has importance in the history of agronomy. It was based on English models but modified and adapted to its American context, which included slave labor as an economic basis. There is a core of 16 surviving 18th-century structures set in a landscape of gardens, fences, lanes, walkways, and other features, situated along the Potomac River, that changed and developed over many years in Washington's family. The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, which has owned and maintained the property for 150 years, is strongly supportive of the site's nomination to the World Heritage List. George Washington's Mount Vernon is being selected for the drafting of a World Heritage nomination primarily because it likewise could fill a significant gap in the U.S. cultural site list. Colonial expressions of architecture and landscape are also poorly represented on the World Heritage List as a whole. Mount Vernon is a particularly outstanding example of a type of colonial landscape that was tied to the plantation economy based on slavery that prevailed in the American South during the colonial and early Federal periods. It is also the primary illustration of the early historic preservation movement in the United States. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The World Heritage List is an international list of cultural and natural properties nominated by the signatories to the World Heritage Convention (1972). The United States was the prime architect of the Convention, an international treaty for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage sites of global significance proposed by President Richard M. Nixon in 1972, and the United States was the first nation to ratify it. In 2005, the United States was elected to a fourth term on the World Heritage Committee and will serve until 2009. The Committee, composed of representatives of 21 nations elected as the governing body of the World Heritage Convention, makes the final decisions on which nominations to accept on the World Heritage List at its annual meeting each summer. There are 851 sites in 140 of the 185 signatory countries. Currently there are 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States. U.S. participation and the roles of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service are authorized by Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 and conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 73—World Heritage Convention. The National Park Service provides the technical and staff support to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, who has the lead role for the U.S. Government in the implementation of the Convention. The National Park Service manages all or parts of 17 of the 20 U.S. World Heritage Sites currently listed, including Yellowstone National Park, Everglades National Park, and the Statue of Liberty. A Tentative List is a national list of natural and cultural properties appearing to meet the World Heritage Committee eligibility criteria for nomination to the World Heritage List. A country cannot nominate a property unless it has been on its Tentative List for a minimum of a year. Countries are limited to nominating no more than two sites in any given year. Neither inclusion in the Tentative List nor inscription as a World Heritage Site imposes legal restrictions on owners or neighbors of sites, nor does it give the United Nations any management authority or ownership rights in U.S. World Heritage Sites, which continue to be subject exclusively to U.S. law. Inclusion in the Tentative List merely indicates that the property may be further examined for possible World Heritage nomination in the future. The World Heritage Committee's Operational Guidelines ask participating nations to provide Tentative Lists, which aid in evaluating properties for the World Heritage List on a comparative international basis and help the Committee to schedule its work over the long term. The Guidelines recommend that a nation review its Tentative List at least once every decade. In order to guide the U.S. World Heritage Program effectively and in a timely manner, the National Park Service prepared and submitted (through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State) a new Tentative List to the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO on January 24, 2008. Submittal of nominations must be made no later than January 30, 2009, for the World Heritage Committee to be able to consider them at its annual meeting in the summer of 2010. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470 a-1, a-2, d; 36 CFR 73. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-15402 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group
(FLAG)AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The National Park Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, is announcing the availability of, and accepting comments on, the draft *FLAG Phase I Report—REVISED.* The *F* ederal *L* and Managers' *A* ir Quality Related Values Work *G* roup
(FLAG)was formed
(1)to develop a more consistent and objective approach for the Federal Land Managers (FLMs), *i.e.* , National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, to evaluate air pollution effects on their air quality related values (AQRVs); and
(2)to provide State permitting authorities and potential permit applicants consistency on how to assess the impacts of new and existing sources on AQRVs. The FLAG effort focuses on the effects of the air pollutants that could affect the health and status of resources in areas managed by the three agencies, primarily such pollutants as ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrates, and sulfates. FLAG formed subgroups that concentrated on four issues:
(1)Terrestrial effects of ozone;
(2)aquatic and terrestrial effects of wet and dry pollutant deposition;
(3)visibility; and
(4)process and policy issues. In December 2000, after undergoing a public review and comment process that included a 90-day public comment period announced in the **Federal Register** and a public meeting, the FLMs published a final Phase I report (FLAG 2000), along with an accompanying “Response to Public Comments” document. FLAG 2000 has been a useful tool to the FLMs, State permitting authorities, and permit applicants. It was intended to be a working document that would be revised as necessary as the FLMs learn more about how to better assess the health and status of AQRVs. Based on knowledge gained and regulatory developments since FLAG 2000, the FLMs believe certain revisions to FLAG 2000 are now appropriate. The draft revised report now available for public review and comment (FLAG 2008) reflects those changes. The most significant changes proposed in the draft FLAG 2008 revision are summarized as follows: • Adopts similar criteria derived from EPA's 2005 Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)guidelines for the Regional Haze Rule to screen out from AQRV review those sources with relatively small amounts of emissions located a large distance from a Class I area ( *i.e.* , Q/D ≤ 10). • Utilizes the most recent EPA estimates to determine average annual and 20% best natural visibility conditions for Class I areas, using the new EPA-approved algorithm. • Adopts criteria derived from the 2005 BART guidelines that utilizes monthly average relative humidity adjustment factors to minimize the affects of weather events ( *i.e.* , short-term meteorological phenomena) on modeled visibility impacts. • Adopts criteria derived from the 2005 BART guidelines that sets a 98th percentile value to screen out roughly seven days of haze-type visibility impairment per year. • Includes deposition analysis thresholds and concern thresholds for nitrogen and sulfur deposition impacts on vegetation, soils, and water. • Increases transparency and consistency of factors considered for adverse impact determinations. The agencies are soliciting comments on the merits of adopting the EPA BART approach in assessing new source impacts to the federal lands that they administer. For example, the agencies are soliciting comments on exclusively using monthly relative humidity adjustment factors (parallel to Method 6 in the CALPUFF post processor) or also allowing an option for the use of short-term average relative humidity adjustment factors (parallel to Method 2 in the CALPUFF post processor used in FLAG 2000). DATES: Written comments on the FLAG 2008 draft report must be received by September 8, 2008. If there is sufficient interest, the FLMs will conduct a public meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the FLAG report. Please contact John Bunyak at the address below if you would like the FLMs to conduct such a public meeting. ADDRESSES: A copy of the draft *FLAG Phase I Report—Revised* can be obtained from John Bunyak or downloaded from the Internet at: *http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/flag/index.cfm.* *Mail comments to:* John Bunyak, Air Resources Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225. E-mail comments can be sent to *john_bunyak@nps.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bunyak at the above address or by calling
(303)969-2818. Dated: June 26, 2008. John Bunyak, Acting Chief, Air Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-15397 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-25-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 21, 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 23, 2008. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National, Historic Landmarks Program. ARKANSAS Arkansas County Crocketts Bluff Hunting Lodge, End of dirt Rd. N. of pt. at which Hwy. 153 turns S., Crocketts Bluff, 08000723. Miller County Adams, Wallace, Service Station (Historic Buildings of Texarkana, Arkansas, MPS), 523 E. 23rd St., Texarkana, 08000726. Cotton Belt Railroad Office Building, (Historic Buildings of Texarkana, Arkansas, MPS), 312 E. Broad St., Texarkana, 08000727. East Broad Street Historic District (Historic Buildings of Texarkana, Arkansas, MPS), 100 block E. Broad St., Texarkana, 08000729. Hopkins Feed and Seed Store (Historic Buildings of Texarkana, Arkansas, MPS), 301 E. 3rd St., Texarkana, 08000728. Swift Building (Historic Buildings of Texarkana, Arkansas, MPS), 410 E. Broad St., Texarkana, 08000725. Mississippi County Hale Avenue Historic District Boundary Increase II (Osceola MRA), 100 and 200 blocks W. Hale Ave.; 100, 200 blocks E. Hale Ave.; 100 block N. Poplar, Osceola, 08000722. Perry County Wallace Bridge (Historic Bridges of Arkansas MPS), Perry Co. Rd. 18, Nimrod, 08000724. COLORADO Las Animas County White School (Rural School Buildings in Colorado MPS), Jct. of Co. Rd. 191 and Co. Rd. 30, Kim, 08000740. INDIANA Benton County Benton County Courthouse, 706 E. 5th St., Fowler, 08000741. Newton County Newton County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Kentland, 08000742. KENTUCKY Campbell County Fort Thomas Commercial District, 1011-1123 Fort Thomas Ave., 9-11 River Rd., 12-28 Midway Ct., Ft. Thomas, 08000751. LOUISIANA Jackson Parish Palace Theatre, 125 Jimmy Davis Blvd., Jonesboro, 08000731. West Baton Rouge Parish Antonia (Louisiana's French Creole Architecture MPS), 4626 S. River Rd., Port Allen, 08000743. MISSOURI Jackson County Valentine on Broadway Hotel, 3724 Broadway Blvd., Kansas City, 08000745. St. Louis Independent City Oehler Brick Buildings, 3542-48 S. Broadway, St. Louis, 08000749. Wetzell, Zebediah F. Mary H., House, 3741 Washington Ave., St. Louis, 08000739. NEW MEXICO Santa Fe County El Zaguan, 545 Canyon Rd., Santa Fe, 08000732. NORTH DAKOTA Stark County Dickinson (Carnegie Area) Public Library (Philanthropically Established Libraries in North Dakota MPS), 139 3rd St. W., Dickinson, 08000735. SOUTH CAROLINA Anderson County North Anderson Historic District, E. and W. North Ave. between Boundary St. and Mauldin Dr., including parts of Edgewood Dr. Blair St., Central Ave., Anderson, 08000733. Greenville County Allen Temple A.M.E. Church, 109 Green Ave., at jct. with S. Markley St., Greenville, 08000748 Greenwood County Tabernacle Cemetery, Tabernacle Cemetery Rd., just E. of SC Hwy. 254, Greenwood, 08000736. Orangeburg County Trinity Lutheran Church, 390 Hampton St., Elloree, 08000721. Richland County Good Samaritan—Waverly Hospital (Segregation in Columbia, South Carolina MPS), 2204 Hampton St., Columbia, 08000738. SOUTH CAROLINA York County Laurelwood Cemetery (Rock Hill MPS), Bordered by Laurel, W. White, Stewart, and W. Main Sts., Rock Hill, 08000746. TENNESSEE Giles County Noblit—Lytle, House, 1311 Sugar Creek Rd., Minor Hill, 08000734. TEXAS Lipscomb County Lipscomb County Courthouse, Courthouse Square, Lipscomb, 08000730. VERMONT Lamoille County Moscow Village Historic District, Moscow Rd., Shaw Hill Rd., Adams Mill Rd., River Rd., Stowe, 08000744. WISCONSIN Oneida County Miller, Marshall D., Boathouse, 7304 Campground Rd., Three Lakes, 08000747. Trunck, Joseph and Augusta, Boathouse, 1000 Leatzow Rd., Three Lakes, 08000750. Request for removal has been made for the following resources: ARIZONA Maricopa County Archeological Site AZ U: 10:60
(ASM)(Hohokam Land Use and Settlement along the Northern Queen Creek Delta MPS), Address Restricted, Mesa, 95000752. [FR Doc. E8-15367 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-986-987 (Final)] Ferrovanadium From China and South Africa AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject reviews. DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Petronzio (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 22, 2008, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject reviews (73 FR 31711, June 3, 2008). Subsequently, the parties submitted a request to postpone the hearing date. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with the parties' requests. The Commission's new schedule for the reviews is as follows: requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than September 29, 2008; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 2, 2008; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 7, 2008; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 17, 2008; the Commission will make its final release of information on November 5, 2008; and final party comments are due on November 7, 2008. For further information concerning these reviews see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules. Issued: July 2, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15407 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1115 (Final)] Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Termination of investigation. SUMMARY: On June 16, 2008, the Department of Commerce published notice in the **Federal Register** of a negative final determination of sales at less than fair value in connection with the subject investigation (73 FR 33985). Accordingly, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(1) and section 207.40(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.40(a)), the antidumping investigation concerning certain steel nails from the United Arab Emirates (investigation No. 731-TA-1115 (Final)) is terminated. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Ruggles (202-205-3187 or *fred.ruggles@usitc.gov* ), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Authority: This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.10). Issued: July 2, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15405 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-08-017] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade Commission. Time and Date: July 9, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202)205-2000. Status: Open to the public. Matters to be Considered: 1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 2. Minutes. 3. Ratification List. 4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final) (Certain Steel Nails from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before July 21, 2008.) 5. Outstanding action jackets: none. In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 1, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15369 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [OMB Number 1110-0043] Criminal Justice Information Services Division; National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section; Agency Information Collection Activities: Existing Collection, Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Approval of an existing collection; The Voluntary Appeal File
(VAF)Brochure. The Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS)Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS)Section will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 73, Number 83, Pages 23273 on April 29, 2008, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 7, 2008. This process is conducted in accordance with Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, *Attention:* Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to
(202)395-7285. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's/component's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Approval of an existing collection.
(2)*Title of the Forms:* The Voluntary Appeal File
(VAF)Brochure.
(3)*Agency Form Number, if any, and the applicable component of the department sponsoring the collection:* *Form Number:* 1110-0043. *Sponsor:* Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS)Division of the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ).
(4)*Affected Public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Any individual requesting entry into the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS)Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS)Section's Voluntary Appeal File (VAF). *Brief Abstract:* Under 28 CFR, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), (3), the NICS must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions within 24 hours of the Federal Firearm Licensee
(FFL)being notified of the transaction's proceed status. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm, then successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal or the supporting documentation. If the record cannot be updated, the purchaser continues to be delayed or denied, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted for every subsequent purchase. As such, the VAF was mandated to be created and maintained by the NICS Section for the purpose of preventing future lengthy delays or erroneous denials of a firearm transfer. An individual wishing to request entry into the VAF may obtain a VAF brochure from the NICS Section, an FFL, or the NICS Section Web site at the Internet address: *http://www.fbi.gov/programs/nics/index.htm.*
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* It is estimated that 12,500 individuals will request entry into the VAF. It takes an average of 5 minutes to read and complete all areas of the application, an estimated 2 hours for the process of fingerprinting including travel, and 25 minutes to mail the form for a total of 2.5 hours estimated burden to the respondent.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* The number of persons requesting entry into the VAF is estimated to be 12,500 individuals. The time it takes each individual to complete the process is 2.5 hours. The total public burden hours is 12,500 respondents multiplied by 2.5 hours which equals 31,250 total burden hours. If additional information is required, contact: Ms. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: July 1, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-15381 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OMB Number 1121-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 60-Day Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review: National Institute of Justice Voluntary Compliance Testing Program. The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 8, 2008. During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Kris Brambila, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531, or e-mail, *Kristopher.A.Brambila@usdoj.gov.* Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —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 agencies 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. *Overview of This Information*
(1)*Type of information collection:* New collection.
(2)*The title of the form/collection:* NIJ Body Armor Compliance Testing Program. This collection consists of five forms: Compliance Testing Program Applicant Agreement; Ballistic Body Armor Model Application and Body Armor Build Sheet; Declaration for Ballistic Body Armor; Compliance Testing Program Conformity Assessment Follow-up Agreement; NIJ-Approved Laboratory Application and Agreement.
(3)*Agency Form Number:* None. *Component Sponsoring Collection:* National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract. Primary:* Body Armor Manufacturers and Testing Laboratories. Other: None. The purpose of the NIJ Voluntary Compliance Testing Program
(CTP)is to ensure to the degree possible that body armor used for law enforcement and corrections applications is safe, reliable, and meets performance requirements over the declared performance period. Body armor models that are successfully tested by the CTP and listed on the NIJ Compliant Products List are eligible for purchase with grant funding through the Ballistic Vest Partnership.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply:* Total of 60 respondents estimated. *CTP Applicant Agreement:* Estimated 50 respondents; 1 hour each; *Ballistic Body Armor Model Application and Body Armor Build Sheet:* Estimated 50 respondents (estimated 250 responses) at 30 minutes each; *Declaration for Ballistic Body Armor:* Estimated 50 respondents (estimated 250 responses) at 15 minutes each; *CTP Conformity Assessment Follow-up Agreement:* Estimated 50 respondents (estimated 250 responses) at 15 minutes each; *NIJ-Approved Laboratory Application and Agreement:* Estimated 8 to 10 respondents at 1 hour each.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* The estimated total public burden associated with this information is 310 hours in the first year and 100 hours each subsequent year. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: July 2, 2008. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E8-15404 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 12:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide four petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted. Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and Patricia Cushwa. In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public. Dated: June 25, 2008. Cranston J. Mitchell, Vice Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15305 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-01-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Job Corps; Advisory Committee on Job Corps; Meeting AGENCY: Office of Job Corps. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting. SUMMARY: On August 22, 2006, the Advisory Committee on Job Corps
(ACJC)was established in accordance with the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee was established to advance Job Corps' new vision for student achievement aimed at 21st century high-growth employment. This Committee will also evaluate Job Corps program characteristics, including its purpose, goals, and effectiveness, efficiency, and performance measures in order to address the critical issues facing the provision of job training and education to the youth population that it serves. The Committee may provide other advice and recommendations with regard to identifying and overcoming problems, planning program or center development or strengthening relations between Job Corps and agencies, institutions, or groups engaged in related activities. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 22-23, 2008 from 8 a.m. to 12 noon on July 22 and from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on July 23. The Committee will be visiting three Job Corps Centers—Treasure Island, San Jose and Sacramento. ADDRESSES: The Advisory Committee meeting will be held at the Westin St. Francis (San Francisco), 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, California 94102. Telephone:
(866)497-2788. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Woodard, Office of Job Corps, 202-693-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2006 the Advisory Committee on Job Corps (71 FR 48949) was established in accordance with the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee was established to advance Job Corps' new vision for student achievement aimed at 21st century high-growth employment. This Committee will also evaluate Job Corps program characteristics, including its purpose, goals, and effectiveness, efficiency, and performance measures in order to address the critical issues facing the provision of job training and education to the youth population that it serves. The Committee may provide other advice and recommendations with regard to identifying and overcoming problems, planning program or center development or strengthening relations between Job Corps and agencies, institutions, or groups engaged in related activities. *Agenda:* The agenda for the meeting will be the continuation of report outs from the Committee's two subcommittees—subcommittee on facilities and subcommittee on safety and security. *Public Participation:* The meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be available to the public on a first-come first-served basis. Seats will be reserved for the media. Individuals with disabilities should contact the Job Corps official listed above, if special accommodations are needed. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2008. Esther R. Johnson, National Director, Office of Job Corps. [FR Doc. E8-15332 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-23-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Research on Forced Labor in the Production of Goods in Selected Countries AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor. ACTION: New. Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Cooperative Agreement Applications (SGA). The full announcement is posted on *http://www.grants.gov* and DOL/ILAB's Web site at *http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/grants/main.htm.* *Funding Opportunity Number:* SGA 08-07 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* Not applicable. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), will award up to USD 1.25 million over three years through a cooperative agreement to a qualified organization and/or Association to carry out research in eight
(8)countries on forced labor in the production of goods, and to develop strategies to assist governments, industries, and/or third parties in taking action to address these problems. Four
(4)countries are required for research, and applicants must choose four
(4)additional countries. The solicitation provides a list of eleven
(11)countries from which these four
(4)additional countries should be chosen, but applicants may propose four
(4)alternate countries and provide justifications for these choices. Projects funded under SGA 08-07 will involve gathering and analyzing data to answer the research questions outlined in the solicitation. The research will aim to complement and expand upon existing research on the use of forced labor in the production of goods. *Application and Submission Information:* The full-text version of SGA 08-07 is available on *http://www.grants.gov* and USDOL/ILAB's Web site at *http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/grants/main.htm.* All applications for funding under SGA 08-07 must be submitted electronically to USDOL via *http://www.grants.gov.* Any application sent by mail or other delivery services, e-mail, telegram, or facsimile
(FAX)will not be accepted. *Key Dates:* The deadline for submission of applications is August 8, 2008. All technical questions regarding SGA 08-07 must be sent by July 18, 2008 in order to receive a response. USDOL will publish its responses to these technical questions on SGA 08-07 by July 28, 2008. Any questions regarding the electronic assembly of application packages must be sent at least one week prior to the application deadline. USDOL will make all cooperative agreement awards on or before September 30, 2008. *Agency Contacts:* All technical questions regarding SGA 08-07 should be sent to Ms. Lisa Harvey, Grant Officer, U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Procurement Services, via e-mail (e-mail address: harvey.lisa@dol.gov; telephone:
(202)693-4592—this is not a toll-free-number). *Background Information:* ILAB conducts research and commissions studies to inform and formulate international economic, trade and labor policies in collaboration with other U.S. government agencies, and provides technical assistance to countries abroad in support of foreign labor policy objectives. OCFT, formerly the International Child Labor Program (ICLP), was created at the request of Congress in 1993 to specifically research and report on child labor around the world. More recently Congress, through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005, directed ILAB to include, among its responsibilities, monitoring and combating forced labor. 22 U.S.C. 7112(b). Today, OCFT develops policy, conducts research, and implements technical cooperation projects to eradicate exploitive child labor, trafficking in persons, and forced labor worldwide. Since 1994, ILAB has published over 20 congressionally mandated reports on international child labor. In addition to its own research, USDOL has funded projects aimed at building the knowledge base on child labor, forced labor and human trafficking world wide for the purposes of improving program planning, policy design and impact measurement. Research projects have included the collection of child labor data through national surveys, rapid assessments, baseline studies; special and thematic studies; comprehensive literature reviews on forced labor, child labor and human trafficking; and the development of creative and innovative methodologies to measure child labor, forced and bonded labor, and human trafficking. Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of July 2008. Lisa Harvey, Grant Officer. [FR Doc. E8-15398 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [A-W-63,206] Springs Global, US, Inc., Springs Direct Tunnel Road Store Division, Asheville, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated June 5, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on April 28, 2008 and published in the **Federal Register** on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28167). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Springs Global, US, Inc., Springs Direct Tunnel Road Store Division, Asheville, North Carolina was based on the finding that the worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The petitioner states that the workers of the subject firm “answered the needs” in “providing means for the buyer to return damaged goods, overstocks, slow sellers and items they wish to discontinue.” The petitioner further states that the subject firm “provided a profitable avenue” and supported sales and orders for the production division and that the subject firm is “specifically designed for direct support of production.” The petitioner alleges that because other facilities of Springs Global have been certified eligible for TAA, workers of the subject firm who are engaged in retail should be certified eligible for TAA. The investigation revealed that workers of Springs Global, US, Inc., Springs Direct Tunnel Road Store Division, Asheville, North Carolina are engaged in activities at retail outlet store that sold close-out home furnishings merchandise. These functions, as described above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15341 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,180] Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand On March 28, 2008, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further investigation in *Former Employees of Welex, Inc.* v. *United States* , Court No. 07-00314. The worker-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), dated March 26, 2007, stated that workers at Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania (the subject firm) produced “extruders and sheet takeoffs (plastic production)” and alleged that foreign competition contributed to the closure of the subject firm on January 31, 2007. Documentation provided by the petitioners stated that “Welex equipment makes PET, polypropylene and polystyrene sheet for packaging, such as fast food drink cups, lids for disposable coffee cups and clear clamshell boxes.” On April 18, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA/ATAA for workers and former workers of the subject firm. The initial investigation revealed that the subject workers produced plastic extrusion equipment; the subject firm did not import plastic extrusion equipment or shift production of plastic extrusion equipment to any foreign country; subject firm sales and production of plastic extrusion equipment increased in 2006 compared with 2005; and the dominant cause of separations at the subject firm was the complete transfer of plastic extrusion equipment production to a new domestic manufacturing facility. The Department's initial negative determination was based on the findings that increased imports did not contribute importantly to subject firm sales and/or production declines and to workers' separations. The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26425). In the request for administrative reconsideration, dated May 18, 2007, three workers alleged that increased imports contributed importantly to subject firm sales and production declines, and to the subject workers' separations. By letter dated July 3, 2007, the Department informed the workers that the request for reconsideration was dismissed on the basis that insufficient evidence was provided to warrant administrative reconsideration. On July 9, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration. The Department's Notice of dismissal was published in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2007 (72 FR 39080). In the complaint to the USCIT, dated August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff alleged that the subject firm relocated to “the less expensive south” in order to “compete with the Chinese.” The Plaintiff also alleged that “increased imports contributed importantly to an actual decline in sales or production and to our permanent layoff.” To be certified for TAA based on increased imports, the petitioning workers must meet the group eligibility criteria: 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. On remand, the Department sent supplemental information requests for additional information and clarification regarding the subject firm's sales and production process, conducted several lengthy discussions with the subject firm, and contacted a trade association to gain insight into this industry. As a result of these efforts, the Department was able to obtain crucial information which was not previously available. TAA Criterion: Worker Separations at the Subject Firm During the remand investigation, the Department confirmed that the subject firm ceased operations in January 2007 and permanently closed. Therefore, the Department determines that 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. TAA Criterion: Absolute Sales and/or Production Declines at the Subject Firm or Appropriate Subdivision During the remand investigation, the Department received new information which revealed that, although sales and production at the subject firm increased in calendar year 2006 from calendar year 2005 levels, sales orders decreased in the latter part of 2006 and into the earlier part of 2007. Thus, the Department determines that subject firm sales and production declined absolutely. TAA Criterion: Increased Imports Contributed Importantly to Subject Firm Sales/Production Declines and Workers' Separations 29 CFR section 90.2 states that increased imports “means that imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period. The representative base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the date of the petition.” 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) states that “contributed importantly means a cause which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause.” The TAA/ATAA petition date is March 26, 2007. Therefore, the Department must determine whether imports of plastic extrusion equipment (or articles like or directly competitive with the plastic extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm) have increased during March 26, 2006 through March 25, 2007 (relevant period) compared to the base period (the four quarters immediately prior to March 26, 2006). If the Department finds increased imports, the Department must then determine whether the increased imports contributed importantly to the subject firm's sale and/or production declines and workers' separations. Increased Imports of Plastic Extrusion Equipment In previous submissions, the subject firm indicated that it did not import plastic extrusion equipment or any articles like or directly competitive with them and that customer purchases are intermittent. On remand, the subject firm confirmed that, because plastic extrusion equipment is not purchased regularly by customers, there are no major customers that constitute a majority of the subject firm's sales/production declines. The Department was also informed by the subject firm that they do not bid on production projects but fulfill sales orders (customers contact the subject firm, the subject firm quotes a price, and if an order is placed, the subject firm builds the equipment per order specifications). Based on the above facts, the Department determines that a customer survey would be unlikely to produce any meaningful results. Further, the Department determined that, since the subject firm is a major domestic producer and accounts for a significant portion of the domestic plastic extrusion equipment market, aggregate U.S. import data would better reflect the impact of increased U.S. imports on the subject firm. During the remand investigation, the Department conducted research on U.S. shipments and U.S. imports of plastic extrusion equipment during 2005, 2006, and January through April 2007. The Department's research revealed a significant increase in imports of plastic extrusion equipment (and articles like or directly competitive with plastic extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm) during January through April 2007 as compared to estimated imports during January through April 2006. Increased Imports Contributed Importantly to Subject Firm Sales and/or Production Declines and Worker Separations As previously stated, subject firm sales orders declined in the latter part of 2006 into early 2007 and the subject firm sales constitute a meaningful portion of the U.S. plastic extrusion equipment market. Further, the period of increased imports corresponds with the period during which subject firm sales orders declined. Therefore, increased U.S. imports would likely have had a significant impact on the subject firm. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts developed in the remand investigation, I determine that there was a total separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm, that there were subject firm sales and production declines, and that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with plastic extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm contributed importantly to the subject firm declines and the workers' separations. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: ”All workers of Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 26, 2006, through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.” Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15338 Filed 7-7-08; 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 18, 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 18, 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 25th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 6/16/08 and 6/20/08] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 63541 Avery Dennison
(Comp)Fontana, CA 06/16/08 06/13/08 63542 Home Depot (State) Opelousas, LA 06/16/08 06/13/08 63543 Pliant Plastic Company
(UE)South Deerfield, MA 06/17/08 06/12/08 63544 ITW Alma
(Comp)Kennesaw, GA 06/17/08 06/16/08 63545 T. W. Lamination (Woodbridge)
(Comp)Del Rio, TX 06/17/08 06/11/08 63546 BBDO Detroit (State) Troy, MI 06/17/08 06/12/08 63547 Lapeer Metal Stamping
(Wkrs)Lapeer, MI 06/17/08 06/16/08 63548 Colville Indian Plywood and Veneer Co. of Omak
(Comp)Omak, WA 06/17/08 06/04/08 63549 CEVA Logistics—Contract 10164
(Comp)Miamisburg, OH 06/17/08 06/10/08 63550 Pazvenu Apparel, Inc.
(Wkrs)New York, NY 06/17/08 06/01/08 63551 Culp, Inc. Culp Weaving Plant
(Comp)Graham, NC 06/17/08 06/13/08 63552 Maxim Integrated Products—San Jose
(Comp)San Jose, CA 06/17/08 06/13/08 63553 Maxim Integrated Products—Sunnyvale
(Comp)Sunnyvale, CA 06/17/08 06/13/08 63554 Cranford Wood Carving/McCrorie Group, LLC
(Comp)Hickory, NC 06/18/08 06/17/08 63555 Hurd Window and Door
(Wkrs)Medford, WI 06/18/08 06/17/08 63556 Intel Corporation, California Corporate Services Group
(Comp)Santa Clara, CA 06/18/08 06/16/08 63557 Royal Home Fashions
(Comp)Henderson, NC 06/18/08 06/17/08 63558 Park Shirt Company (AFLCIO) Jamestown, TN 06/18/08 06/17/08 63559 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
(Wkrs)Newfield, NJ 06/18/08 05/20/08 63560 Artisans, Inc.
(Comp)Glen Flora, WI 06/18/08 06/17/08 63561 United Airlines
(Wkrs)El Segundo, CA 06/18/08 06/07/08 63562 Winchester Electronics—Rock Hill
(Comp)Rock Hill, SC 06/18/08 06/16/08 63563 Winchester Electronics—Franklin
(Comp)Franklin, MA 06/18/08 06/16/08 63564 Sensormatic Electronic Corporation (State) San Antono, PR 06/18/08 06/17/08 63565 Four Season
(Comp)Grapevine, TX 06/19/08 06/18/08 63566 Plastech
(Comp)Moraine, OH 06/19/08 06/18/08 63567 Huber Engineered Woods, LLC
(Wkrs)Broken Bow, OK 06/19/08 05/01/08 63568 Jockey International, Inc.
(Comp)Mocksville, NC 06/19/08 06/18/08 63569 Leggett and Platt
(Wkrs)Tupelo, MS 06/19/08 06/18/08 63570 Blue Angel's Fashion
(Wkrs)San Francisco, CA 06/20/08 06/19/08 63571 West Point Home
(Comp)New York, NY 06/20/08 06/19/08 63572 Narraganett Jewerly, Inc. d/b/a C & J Jewelry Co.
(Comp)Providence, RI 06/20/08 06/19/08 63573 Avon Products, Inc.
(Wkrs)Suwanee, GA 06/20/08 06/19/08 63574 Albany International Research Company
(Rep)Mansfield, MA 06/20/08 06/19/08 63575 Philips Consumer Lifestyles
(Comp)Ledgewood, NJ 06/20/08 06/18/08 63576 Matador Tool and Die, Inc.
(Comp)Grand Rapids, MI 06/20/08 06/19/08 [FR Doc. E8-15337 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,424] Ferguson Aluminum, Olmsted, IL; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 22, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Ferguson Aluminum, Olmsted, Illinois. The petitioner has requested that petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15342 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,011] B. Walter and Company, Wabash, IN; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application dated May 26, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The initial investigation initiated on March 17, 2008, resulted in a negative determination issued on May 15, 2008, was based on the finding that imports of metal stampings did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 29, 2008 (73 FR 30978). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided new information regarding a customer of the subject firm, which was recently certified eligible for TAA. Upon further investigation it was determined that B. Walter and Company, Wabash, Indiana supplied metal stampings that were used in the production of wooden furniture, and a loss of business with domestic manufacturers (whose workers were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance) contributed importantly to the workers separation or threat of separation. The parts supplied were related to the articles that were the basis of certification. In accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act, as amended, must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers of B. Walter and Company, Wabash, Indiana qualify as adversely affected secondary workers under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of B. Walter and Company, Wabash, Indiana, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 10, 2007, through two years from the date of this certification, 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 in Washington, DC, this 24th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15340 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,508] Bedford Logistics, Inc., Bedford, IN; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 9, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Bedford Logistics, Inc., Bedford, Indiana. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-62,626) which expires on February 27, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15344 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,601] General Ribbon Corporation, Chatsworth, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 25, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of General Ribbon Corporation, Chatsworth, California. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-63,601) which expires on November 30, 2008. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15336 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,534] Novtex Division of Trimtex Co., Inc., Adams, MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 3, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Novtex Division of Trimtex Co., Inc., Adams, Massachusetts. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-63,085A) which expires on April 24, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15345 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,566] Plastech, Moraine, OH; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 19, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Plastech, Moraine, Ohio. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15346 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-63,485] Trans-Ocean Products, Inc., Salem, OR; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 5, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official and a State agency representative on behalf of workers at Trans-Ocean Products, Inc., Salem, Oregon. The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-15343 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2008-0017] Electrical Standards for Construction and General Industry; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Approval of the Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its request for an extension of the information collection requirements contained in the Electrical Standards for Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S). The Standards address safety procedures for installation and maintenance of electric utilization equipment that prevent death and serious injuries among construction and general industry employees in the workplace caused by electrical hazards. DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0017, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0017). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The information collection requirements specified by the Electrical Standards for Construction and General Industry alert employees to the presence and types of electrical hazards in the workplace, thereby preventing serious injury and death by electrocution. The information collection requirements in the standards involve the following: The employer using electrical equipment that is marked with the manufacturer's name, trademark, or other descriptive markings that identify the producer of the equipment, and marking the equipment with the voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings necessary; requiring each disconnecting means for motors and appliances to be marked legibly to indicate its purpose, unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident; requiring the entrances to rooms and other guarded locations containing exposed live parts to be marked with conspicuous warning signs forbidding unqualified persons from entering; and, for construction employers only, establishing and implementing the assured equipment grounding conductor program instead of using ground-fault circuit interrupters. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is proposing to combine the information collection requirements contained in the Design Safety Systems for Electrical Systems (29 CFR 1910.302-.308 and 1910.399 (OMB Control No. 1218-0256) with the information collection requirements contained in the Electrical Standards for Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S) (OMB Control No. 1218-0130). In doing so, the Agency is proposing to adjust the total burden hours of these subparts from 92,644 hours to 151,172 hours; a total increase of 58,528 hours. The burden hours have increased primarily due to an increase in the total number of jobsites for construction from 42,750 to 45,000. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the standards. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Electrical Standards for Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S). *OMB Number:* 1218-0130. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, local, or tribal governments. *Number of Respondents:* 500,000. *Frequency of Response:* Occasionally. *Total Responses:* 2,331,135. *Average Time per Response:* Varies from three minutes (.08 hour) to post and construct each sign to four hours to document a hazardous classified location by a certified electrical engineer. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 151,172. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $7,500. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1)Electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
(2)by facsimile (FAX); or
(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0017). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES ). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627). Comments and submissions are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through this website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the website, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, on July 1, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-15392 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2008-0021] Standard on Vinyl Chloride; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017). DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. *Facsimile:* If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:* When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0021, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0021). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . *Docket:* To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this **Federal Register** notice) are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The Standard specifies a number of paperwork requirements. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the Vinyl Chloride
(VC)Standard.
(A)Exposure Monitoring (§ 1910.1017(d)) Paragraph 1910.1017(d)(2) requires employers to conduct exposure monitoring at least quarterly if the results show that employee exposures are above the permissible exposure limit (PEL), while those exposed at or above the Action Level
(AL)must be monitored no less than semiannually. Paragraph (d)(3) requires that employers perform additional monitoring whenever there has been a change in VC production, process or control that may result in an increase in the release of VC.
(B)Written Compliance Plan (§ 1910.1017(f)(2) and (f)(3)) Paragraph (f)(2) requires employers whose engineering and work practice controls cannot sufficiently reduce employee VC exposures to a level at or below the PEL to develop and implement a plan for doing so. Paragraph (f)(3) requires employers to develop this written plan and provide it upon request to OSHA for examination and copying. These plans must be updated annually.
(C)Medical Surveillance (§ 1910.1017(k)) Paragraph
(k)requires employers to develop a medical surveillance program for employees exposed to VC in excess of the action level. Examinations must be provided in accordance with this paragraph at least annually. Employers must also obtain, and provide to each employee, a copy of a physician's statement regarding the employee's suitability for continued exposure to VC, including use of protective equipment and respirators, if appropriate.
(D)Recordkeeping (§ 1910.1017(m)) Employers must maintain employee exposure and medical records. The VC standard requires that employers make available monitoring, measuring, and medical records at the request of the Assistant Secretary (usually an OSHA compliance officer). II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection of information requirements contained in the Standard on Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017). The Agency is requesting to reduce its current burden hour estimate associated with the Standard from 1,758 hours to 712 hours for a total reduction of 1,046 hours. This decrease (based on new data obtained by the Agency) is a result of reducing the number of VC and PVC establishments from 77 to 32 establishments. The Agency will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these collection of information requirements. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Vinyl Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1017). *OMB Number:* 1218-0010. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits. *Number of Respondents:* 32. *Total Responses:* 1,108. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Time per Response:* Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for employers to maintain records to 12 hours for employers to update their compliance plans. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,758. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $48,928. IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to this notice by
(1)Hard copy,
(2)FAX transmission (facsimile), or
(3)electronically through the OSHA Webpage. Because of security-related problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627) for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand delivery and courier service. All comments, submissions and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are available at *http://www.OSHA.gov* . Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and for assistance using the Webpage to locate docket submissions. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** notice as well as other relevant documents are available on OSHA's Webpage. Since all submissions become public, private information such as social security numbers should not be submitted. V. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159). Signed at Washington, DC, on July 1, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-15393 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-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 24, 2008. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 450, “General Assignment.” 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0114. 4. *The form number if applicable:* NRC Form 450. 5. *How often the collection is required:* Once during the closeout process. 6. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Contractors, Grantees, and Cooperators. 7. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 100. 8. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 100. 9. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 200. 10. *Abstract:* During the contract closeout process, the NRC requires the contractor to execute a NRC Form 450, General Assignment. Completion of the form grants the government all rights, titles, and interest to refunds arising out of the contractor performance. 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 August 7, 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 (3150-0114), 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 27th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-15410 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information or Safeguards Information I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.
(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This notice includes notices of amendments containing sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or safeguards information (SGI). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/part002-0309.html.* Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF)in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http:// *www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,* unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov* . Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., *et al.* , Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut *Date of amendment request:* May 8, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed changes would allow for interim alternate steam generator tube repair criterion, as specified in the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3
(MPS3)technical specifications. The interim alternate repair criterion would be for the upcoming refueling outage and the subsequent operating cycle. The proposed request would also add three reporting criteria to the MPS3 technical specifications for steam generator tube inspections. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed changes affect only the steam generator tube rupture
(SGTR)event evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB), locked rotor, and control rod ejection accident evaluations. Loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)conditions cause a compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out, it is not a factor in this amendment request. Another faulted load consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F steam generators has shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an SSE. At normal operating pressures, leakage from PWSCC [primary water stress-corrosion cracking] below 17 inches from the TTS [top of tubesheet] is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region. For the SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes is [are] maintained by limiting the allowable ligament size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to 203 degrees below 17 inches from the TTS for the subsequent operating cycle. Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the hydraulic expansion region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet. The potential for tube pullout is mitigated by limiting the allowable crack size to 203 degrees for the subsequent operating cycle. These allowable crack sizes take into account eddy current uncertainty and crack growth rate. It has been shown that a circumferential crack with an azimuthal extent of 203 degrees for the 18-month SG tubing eddy current inspection interval meets the performance criteria of NEI 97-06, Rev. 2, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines” and Draft Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [pressurized-water reactor] Steam Generator Tubes.” Therefore, the margin against tube burst/pullout is maintained during normal and postulated accident conditions and the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequence of a SGTR. The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident conditions (including locked rotor and control rod ejection) has been shown to remain within the accident analysis assumptions for all axial or circumferentially oriented cracks occurring 17 inches below the top of the tubesheet. Since normal operating leakage is limited to 150 gpd (approximately 0.10 gpm), the attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from indications below 17 inches from the top of the tubesheet, would be bounded by 0.35 gpm. This value is within the accident analysis assumptions for the limiting design basis accident for MPS3, which is the postulated SLB event. Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev. 2 and Draft Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121 continue to be met and the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed [amendment] create the possibility of a new or different [kind of] accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant conditions upon implementation of the interim alternate repair criteria. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed [amendment] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting GDC 14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability and consequences of an SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions of tube wall degradation beyond which tubes with unacceptable cracking, as established by inservice inspection, should be removed from service or repaired, the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the ASME Code. For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube or the tube-to-tubesheet weld, Reference 4 defines a length of remaining tube ligament that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety factors applied). Additionally, it is shown that application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will not result in unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety as defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or bases of the plant Technical Specifications. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania *Date of amendment request:* October 19, 2007, supplemented by letters dated March 14, 2008, and March 26, 2008. *Description of amendment request:* This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed changes would increase the allowed interval between local power range monitor
(LPRM)calibrations from 1000 effective full power hours
(EFPH)to 2000 EFPH as specified in the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, technical specifications. The proposed interval increase is enabled by improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear instrumentation that have occurred since LGS, Units 1 and 2, were originally licensed. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented, with NRC staff annotations in brackets, below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the surveillance interval for the Local Power Range Monitor
(LPRM)calibrations from 1000 Effective Full Power Hours
(EFPH)to 2000 EFPH. Increasing the frequency interval between required LPRM calibrations is acceptable due to improvements in core monitoring processes and nuclear instrumentation and therefore, the revised surveillance interval continues to ensure that the LPRM detector signal is adequately calibrated. This proposed change will not alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems, or components as described in the LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does not alter the initiation conditions or operational parameters for the LPRM system and there is no new equipment introduced by the extension of the LPRM calibration interval. The performance of the APRM [average power range monitor], OPRM [oscillation power range monitor], RBM [rod block monitor], and 3D MONICORE [core monitoring] systems [are] not significantly affected by the proposed surveillance interval increase. As such, the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased. The radiological consequences of an accident can be affected by the thermal limits existing at the time of the postulated accident; however, LPRM chamber exposure has no significant effect on the calculated thermal limits since LPRM accuracy does not significantly deviate with exposure. For the LPRM extended calibration interval, the total [bundle] power uncertainty remains [within the accuracy assumptions of the thermal limit calculation]. Therefore, the thermal limit calculation is not significantly affected by LPRM calibration frequency, and thus the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE systems is not significantly affected by the proposed LPRM surveillance interval increase. The proposed change does not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to transient conditions. The proposed change does not change or introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation or failure mechanisms. Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change has no impact on equipment design or fundamental operation, and there are no changes being made to safety limits or safety system allowable values that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed LPRM surveillance interval increase. The performance of the APRM, OPRM, RBM, and 3D MONICORE systems is not significantly affected by the proposed change. The margin of safety can be affected by the thermal limits existing at the time of the postulated accident; however, uncertainties associated with LPRM chamber exposure have no significant effect on the calculated thermal limits. The thermal limit calculation is not significantly affected since LPRM sensitivity with exposure is well defined. LPRM accuracy, [even when including an allowance for an increased uncertainty associated with the LPRM update interval] remains within the [assumptions] in the thermal analysis basis; thereby maintaining thermal limits and the safety margin. The proposed change does not affect safety analysis assumptions or initial conditions and therefore, the margin of safety in the original safety analyses are maintained. Therefore, based on the above information, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, with changes in the areas noted above, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. *NRC Branch Chief:* Harold K. Chernoff. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama *Date of amendment request:* December 20, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
(TS)3.3.1, “Reactor Trip System
(RTS)Instrumentation,” TS 3.3.2, “Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,” TS 3.3.6, “Containment Purge and Exhaust Isolation Instrumentation,” TS 3.3.7, “Control Room Emergency Filtration/Pressurization System (CREFS) Actuation Instrumentation,” and TS 3.3.8, “Penetration Room Filtration
(PRF)System Actuation Instrumentation” to adopt Completion Time, bypass test time, and Surveillance Requirement
(SR)Frequency changes approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)in WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1, “Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the reactor protection system
(RPS)and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times,” October 1998 and WCAP-15376-P-A, Revision 1, “Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and Completion Times,” March 2003. In addition, the proposed amendments would revise SR 3.3.1.8 to adopt Surveillance Frequency changes approved by the NRC in Industry/Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification
(STS)Change Traveler 242, Revision 1, “Increase the time to perform a channel operational test
(COT)on Power Range and Intermediate Range Instruments.” Also, the proposed amendments would revise the Completion Times of limiting condition for operation
(LCO)3.3.1, Condition F from 2 hours to 24 hours consistent with changes approved by the NRC in Industry/TSTF STS Change Traveler 246, Revision 0, “RTS Instrumentation, 3.3.1 Condition F Completion Time.” Finally, the proposed amendments would provide for minor editorial changes. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No Overall protection system performance will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system
(RTS)and engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. These changes to the Technical Specifications do not result in a condition where the design, material, or construction standards that were applicable prior to the change are altered. The proposed changes will not modify any system interface. The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluation in the updated [final safety analysis report] FSAR. The determination that the results of the proposed changes are acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared for WCAP-14333-P-A (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for WCAP-15376-P-A (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002). Implementation of the proposed changes will not result in a significant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC Safety Evaluation conditions. The proposed changes to the Completion Times, bypass test times, and Surveillance Frequencies reduce the potential for inadvertent reactor trips and spurious ESF [engineered safety feature] actuations, and therefore, do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not change the response of the plant to any accidents and do not have a significant impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals. The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable, and the proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the impact on plant safety as measured by the increase in core damage frequency
(CDF)is less than 1.0E-06 per year and the increase in large early release frequency
(LERF)is less than 1.0E-07 per year. In addition, for the Completion Time changes, the incremental conditional core damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.0E-07 and 5.0E-08, respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS will continue to perform their functions with high reliability as originally assumed, and the increase in risk as measured by ΔCDF, ΔLERF, ICCDP, ICLERP risk metrics is within the acceptance criteria of existing regulatory guidance, there will not be a significant increase in the consequences of any accidents. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2)Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in any hardware changes or physical alteration to any plant system, nor will there be any change in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident analysis assumptions. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3)Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings (LSSS), or limiting conditions for operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There is no impact on the supporting RTS and ESFAS setpoint uncertainty calculations or the LSSS trip setpoint safety margin. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, DNBR [departure from nucleate boiling ratio] limits, F <sup>Q</sup> , FΔH, LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] PCT [peak cladding temperature], peak local power density, or any other margin of safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed in the Standard Review Plan will continue to be met. Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The calculated impact on risk is not significant and meets the acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human factors benefit due to increased Completion Times and bypass test times, it is expected that there would be a net benefit due to a reduced potential for spurious reactor trips and actuations associated with testing. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
(a)Reduced testing will result in fewer inadvertent reactor trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAS components, and less frequent distraction of operations personnel, without significantly affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability.
(b)Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating staff in monitoring and controlling plant operation will be realized. This is due to less frequent distraction of the operators and shift supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions with short Completion Times.
(c)The Completion Time extensions for the reactor trip breakers will provide additional time to complete test and maintenance activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages related to compliance with reactor trip breaker Completion Times, and provide consistency with the Completion Times for the logic trains. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35201. *NRC Branch Chief:* Melanie C. Wong. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information
(SGI)for Contention Preparation Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., *et al.* , Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama 1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to the proceedings listed above may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information (SUNSI and SGI). 2. Within ten
(10)days after publication of this notice of opportunity for hearing, any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary for a response to the notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A “potential party” is any person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten
(10)days will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. 3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* and *OGCmail@nrc.gov,* respectively. 1 The request must include the following information: 1 See footnote 6. While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's “E-Filing Rule,” the initial request to access SUNSI and/or SGI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this **Federal Register** notice of opportunity for hearing; b. The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in (a); c. If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, particularly why publicly available versions of the application would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; d. If the request is for SGI, the identity of the individual requesting access to SGI and the identity of any expert, consultant or assistant who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI, and information that shows:
(i)Why the information is indispensable to meaningful participation in this licensing proceeding; and
(ii)The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, experience, training or education) of the requester to understand and use (or evaluate) the requested information to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant or assistant who demonstrates technical competence as well as trustworthiness and reliability, and who agrees to sign a non-disclosure affidavit and be bound by the terms of a protective order; and e. If the request is for SGI, Form SF-85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), and a credit check release form completed by the individual who seeks access to SGI and each individual who will aid the requester in evaluating the SGI. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically, through a restricted-access database. To obtain online access to the form, the requester should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415- 0320. 2 The other completed forms must be signed in original ink, accompanied by a check or money order payable in the amount of $191.00 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual, and mailed to the: Office of Administration, Security Processing Unit, Mail Stop T-6E46, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0012. 2 The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name, social security number, date and place of birth, telephone number, and e-mail address. After providing this information, the requester usually should be able to obtain access to the online form within one business day. These forms will be used to initiate the background check, which includes fingerprinting as part of a criminal history records check. Note: Copies of these forms do not need to be included with the request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but the request letter should state that the forms and fees have been submitted as described above. 4. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all forms should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. Incomplete packages will be returned to the sender and will not be processed. 5. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 2 and 3.a through 3.d, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten days of receipt of the written access request whether
(1)there is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding, and
(2)there is a legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested. For SGI, the need to know determination is made based on whether the information requested is necessary ( *i.e.* , indispensable) for the proposed recipient to proffer and litigate a specific contention in this NRC proceeding 3 and whether the proposed recipient has the technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training, education, or experience) to evaluate and use the specific SGI requested in this proceeding. 3 Broad SGI requests under these procedures are thus highly unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; furthermore, staff redaction of information from requested documents before their release may be appropriate to comport with this requirement. These procedures do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in connection with an already-admitted contention. 6. If standing and need to know SGI are shown, the NRC staff will further determine based upon completion of the background check whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable. The NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection systems are sufficient to protect SGI from inadvertent release or disclosure. Recipients may opt to view SGI at the NRC's facility rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection requirements. 7. A request for access to SUNSI or SGI will be granted if: a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding; b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a need for SUNSI or a need to know for SGI, and that the proposed recipient of SGI is trustworthy and reliable; c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI and/or SGI; and d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning the information or documents requested. 4 Any protective order issued shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI or SGI contentions 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later deadline. 4 If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer to do so. 8. If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms and conditions for access to sensitive unclassified information will be set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties to this proceeding, 5 and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within ten
(10)days, describing the obstacles to the agreement. 5 Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access determination (and may participate in the development of such a motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information ( *e.g.* , as with proprietary information). 9. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff or a request for access to SGI is denied by NRC staff either after a determination on standing and need to know or, later, after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within ten
(10)days of receipt of that determination with
(a)The presiding officer designated in this proceeding;
(b)if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or
(c)if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer. In the same manner, an SGI requester may challenge an adverse determination on trustworthiness and reliability by filing a challenge within fifteen
(15)days of receipt of that determination. In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within ten
(10)days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of such a request. If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 6 6 As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final “E-Filing Rule” became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI/SGI requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 10. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI and/or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards Information
(SGI)in This Proceeding Day Event/Activity 0 Publication of Federal Register notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing, including order with instructions for access requests. 10 Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI and/or SGI with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that access should be granted ( *e.g.* , showing technical competence for access to SGI); and, for SGI, including application fee for fingerprint/background check. 60 Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing:
(i)Demonstration of standing;
(ii)all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 20 NRC staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows
(1)need for SUNSI or
(2)need to know for SGI. (For SUNSI, NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). If NRC staff makes the finding of need to know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins background check (including fingerprinting for a criminal history records check), information processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents), and readiness inspections. 25 If NRC staff finds no “need,” “need to know,” or likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds “need” for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30 Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. 190 (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing, need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a determination that the proposed recipient of SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note: Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. 205 Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer. A If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A + 3 Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI and/or SGI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A + 28 Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later deadline. A + 53 (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. A + 60 (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers B Decision on contention admission. [FR Doc. E8-15301 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-17205] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Nuclear Materials License No. 06-19244-01, for Termination of the License and Unrestricted Release of the Delta Lighting Corporation Facility in Stamford, CT AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas K. Thompson, Sr. Health Physicist, Commercial, Research and Development Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406; telephone
(610)337-5303; fax number
(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *tkt@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to byproduct materials License No. 06-19244-01. This license is held by Delta Lighting Corporation (the Licensee), for its facility located at 200 Henry Avenue, Stamford, Connecticut (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use and termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated October 15, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's October 15, 2007, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of its NRC materials license. License No. 06-19244-01 was issued on May 30, 1980, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use sealed sources containing hydrogen-3 to assemble equipment that was distributed to the Department of Defense. The Facility is comprised of a 5-story building, approximately 635 feet long and 68 foot wide, consisting of office space and laboratories. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to the east end of the third floor of the building. The Facility is located in a mixed residential/commercial area. Within the Facility, the radionuclide of concern was hydrogen-3 because the half-life of this isotope is greater than 120 days. On August 16, 2007, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey of the affected areas of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with the NRC-approved operating radiation safety procedures, would be required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on August 16, 2007. This survey covered the areas of use in the Facility. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated October 15, 2007. The Licensee demonstrated compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402, were not exceeded. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (MUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Radiation, for review on January 3, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the State of Connecticut responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. NRC License No. 06-19244-01 (ML013040402); Termination request dated October 15, 2007 (ML072970647); Additional information on termination request October 31, 2007 (ML073120241); Additional information on termination request dated December 3, 2007 (ML073410648); License application dated December 5, 1979 (ML073520073); License application dated March 25, 1980 (ML073520085); License application dated July 30, 2001 (ML012220088); Inspection report dated June 2005 (ML051880266); NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;” Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.” If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 26th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial, Research and Development Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E8-15409 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of July 7, 14, 21, 28, August 4, 11, 2008. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and closed. Week of July 7, 2008 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 7, 2008. Week of July 14, 2008—Tentative Thursday, July 17, 2008 1 p.m. Briefing on Fire Protection Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Alex Klein, 301 415-2822). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of July 21, 2008—Tentative Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 3). Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex. 1 & 3). Week of July 28, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 28, 2008. Week of August 4, 2008—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 4, 2008. Week of August 11, 2008—Tentative Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:30 p.m. Meeting with FEMA and State and Local Representatives on Offsite Emergency Preparedness Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Chris Miller, 301 415-1086). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:30 p.m. Meeting with Organization of Agreement States
(OAS)and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) (Public Meeting) (Contact: Andrea Jones, 301 415-2309). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov* . *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,
(301)415-1662. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html* . The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *REB3@nrc.gov* . Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc.gov.* Dated: July 2, 2008. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1420 Filed 7-3-08; 10:41 am]
Connectionstraces to 116
Traces to 116 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
86 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 26 CFR 1
  • Pub. L. 108-357
  • 118 Stat. 1418
  • 30 CFR 948
  • 30 CFR 816
  • 40 CFR 434
  • 40 CFR 434.70-75
  • 30 CFR 850
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 36 CFR 7
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 40 CFR 62
  • 47 CFR 27
  • 47 CFR 1.46(a)
  • 47 CFR 1.46
  • 47 CFR 0.131
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 17.11
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 50 CFR 424.11(d)
  • 50 CFR 17.95(x)
  • 16 USC 1361-1407
  • 16 USC 1531-1544
  • 16 USC 4201-4245
  • Pub. L. 99-625
  • 100 Stat. 3500
  • Pub. L. 107-171
  • Pub. L. 110-246
  • 50 USC 1701-1706
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 899 F.2d 1185
+ 46 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 7805
U.S.C.§ 1253
C.F.R.§ 948.10
U.S.C.§ 1201
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite26 CFR 1
Cites 202 · 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.