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 · 2008-07-15 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of Modifications with Request for Comment

100,439 words·~457 min read·/register/2008/07/15/08-1439

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

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-836] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Glycine from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Toni Dach, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442 and
(202)482-1655, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 4, 2008, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of glycine from the People's Republic of China, covering the period March 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007. *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission* , 73 FR 18503 (April 4, 2008). Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act and the regulations further provide that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . See section Error! Main Document Only.751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations. However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. The Department extended the deadline for parties to submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs in order to address several issues raised by interested parties. As a result of these extensions and to allow more time to analyze issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the administrative review within the current time limit. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the deadline for the final results of a review to a maximum of 180 days from the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published. For the reasons noted above, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these final results by 30 days, from the current deadline of August 2, 2008, until no later than September 2, 2008. 1 1 An extension of 30 days from the current deadline of August 2, 2008, would result in a new deadline of September 1, 2008. However, since September 1, 2008, is a federal holiday, the deadline will be the next business day, September 2, 2008. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 8, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16155 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-913] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances 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 certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For information on the final subsidy rates, *see* the “Final Determination” section of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, Jun Jack Zhao, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Toni Page, 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)482-3148,
(202)482-1396,
(202)482-1395, or
(202)482-1398, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History Since the publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** on December 17, 2007, the following events have occurred. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,* 72 FR 71360 (December 17, 2007) ( *Preliminary Determination* ). At the request of Petitioners, 1 the Department aligned the final determination in this countervailing duty investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination,* 73 FR 3238 (January 17, 2008). 1 Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively, Petitioners). The domestic interested party is Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC (collectively, Bridgestone). In the *Preliminary Determination,* we invited Petitioners, Bridgestone, and all of the Respondents 2 to comment on land use rights. We received comments from all parties regarding this issue on January 7, 2008. The Petitioners, Bridgestone and the Respondents also submitted factual information and arguments prior to the final determination based on various deadlines for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by the Department subsequent to the *Preliminary Determination* . 2 The Government of The People's Republic of China (GOC), Guizhou Tire Co., Ltd. (GTC), Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright), and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (TUTRIC) (collectively, Respondents). On January 9, 2008, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOC, GTC, Starbright, and TUTRIC. We received responses to our January 9, 2008 supplemental questionnaire from all Respondents on February 6, 2008. We issued another supplemental questionnaire to all respondent parties on January 25, 2008 for which we received responses from all Respondents on February 15, 2008. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the GOC on February 13, 2008 for which the GOC filed a response on February 27, 2008. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to GTC on February 15, 2008 for which GTC filed a response on February 28, 2008. The Department also issued supplemental questionnaires to TUTRIC and Starbright on February 19, 2008, pursuant to which the companies filed responses on February 27, 2008. The Department received requests for a hearing from the Petitioners, Bridgestone, the GOC, Starbright, and GTC on January 9, 2008 and on January 16, 2008 from TUTRIC. The Department had scheduled the hearing for June 19, 2008; however, on June 16, 2008 the Department received a letter from Bridgestone stating that all interested parties agreed that a hearing was not necessary. *See* Letter to the Department, “New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Consent Withdrawal of All Hearing Requests” (June 16, 2008), on file in the Department's Central Records Unit
(CRU)(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building). From March 3 through March 13, 2008, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, including the national, provincial, and local governments, GTC, and TUTRIC. The Department issued verification reports on April 22, 2008 and April 24, 2008. *See* Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of the People's Republic of China
(GOC)(GOC Verification Report);* Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by GTC Co., Ltd. (GTC Verification Report);* Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Meetings with the Government of the Guizhou Province Regarding GTC Co., Ltd. and Affiliates (Guizhou Province Verification Report);* Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (TUTRIC Verification Report);* and Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Meetings with the Government of Tianjin Municipality Regarding Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. and Affiliates (Tianjin Government Verification Report).* On March 7, 2008, the Department decided not to verify Starbright because the company had repeatedly declined to provide requested information. *See* Letter to Starbright, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China* (March 7, 2008), on file in the Department's CRU. On March 11 and March 12, 2008, Starbright and the GOC, respectively, filed letters objecting to the Department's decision. On March 12, 2008, Petitioners and Bridgestone filed letters stating that the Department should not verify Starbright. The Department held several meetings with Starbright officials and GOC officials. *See* Memoranda to the File, “Ex-parte Meeting with Representatives of Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.” (March 11, 2008), “Meeting with Chinese Ministry of Commerce Bureau of Fair Trade Director General Li Ling” (March 12, 2008), “Ex-Parte Meeting with Representatives of Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd.” (March 24, 2008), on file in the Department's CRU. After evaluating all of the parties' submissions and arguments on the matter, the Department stated that it would conduct a limited verification of Starbright's recurring subsidies received after Starbright's change in ownership. *See* Letter to Starbright, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China* (March 12, 2008). The Department then issued the GOC and Starbright a supplemental questionnaire providing them a final opportunity to provide the information previously requested. *See* the Department's questionnaires to the GOC and Starbright (March 24, 2008). The Department stated that it would reconsider its decision not to verify Starbright and the local governments that have jurisdiction over the company if Starbright and the GOC provided complete responses to the Department's March 24, 2008 questionnaire concerning Starbright's change in ownership. In the cover letter to the questionnaire, we stated that we needed the information regarding Starbright's purchase of Hebei Tire Co., Ltd. to analyze fully Starbright's claim that the sale at issue was at arm's length and for fair market value. The Department informed Starbright that, if the company or the GOC decided not to provide the information requested, the Department would use facts otherwise available with possible adverse inferences. *See* the Cover Letter of the Department's March 24, 2008 Questionnaire to Starbright. The GOC and Starbright filed responses to these questionnaires, respectively, on April 8 and April 9, 2008. Based on our examination of these responses, the Department decided to verify. *See* Letter to the GOC, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China* (April 18, 2008) and Letter to Starbright, * Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China * (April 21, 2008) to which the verification outlines were attached, on file in the Department's CRU. The Department then verified Starbright as well as the governments of Hebei province and the city of Xingtai from April 24 through May 1, 2008. We issued verification reports on May 13, 2008 and May 14, 2008. See Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Meetings with the Government of Hebei Province and Xingtai Municipality Regarding Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright) and Hebei Tire Co., Ltd. (Hebei Tire) (Hebei Province Verification Report)* and Memorandum to Thomas Gilgunn, Program Manager, *Countervailing Duty Investigation: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright) (Starbright Verification Report).* On May 2, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary analysis for certain programs for which the Department stated in the *Preliminary Determination* additional information was needed. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China; Post-Preliminary Analysis of Non-Tradable Share Reform; Provision of Water to FIEs for Less than Adequate Remuneration; Grants to the Tire Industry for Electricity; and Various Provincial/Municipal Programs* (May 2, 2008) ( *Post-Preliminary Analysis* ), on file in the Department's CRU. The Department then issued a post-preliminary analysis regarding the change in ownership for Starbright. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires (OTR Tires) from the People's Republic of China; Analysis of Change in Ownership* (May 28, 2008) *(CIO Memorandum).* Due to the decision to conduct verification of Starbright, the Department set up two separate briefing schedules: one for all issues except Starbright-specific issues and one for Starbright issues. *See* Memorandum to the File, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Briefing and Hearing Schedules* (April 3, 2008) and Memorandum to the File, *Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Briefing and Hearing Schedules* (May 28, 2008). In accordance with the briefing schedules, we received case briefs from Petitioners, Bridgestone, the GOC, GTC, and TUTRIC on May 9 and 12, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on May 15, 2008. The Department then received case briefs regarding Starbright-specific issues on June 4 and June 5, 2008 from Petitioners, Bridgestone, the GOC, and Starbright. On June 6, 2008, the Department determined that Starbright's brief contained untimely new factual information and requested that Starbright submit replacement pages with all references to this information removed. *See* Letter to Starbright, *New Factual Information* (June 6, 2008). Starbright submitted replacement pages without the untimely filed new factual information on June 9, 2008. Petitioners, Bridgestone, the GOC, and Starbright submitted rebuttal briefs pertaining to Starbright-specific issues on June 9 and June 10, 2008. On June 10, 2008, both Bridgestone and Starbright filed letters with the Department alleging that the other party had included new factual information on the record in both the case briefs and the rebuttal briefs. On June 13, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum to the file addressing all allegations of new factual information. *See* Memorandum to the File, *Various Allegations Concerning Case and Rebuttal Briefs Regarding Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright),* on file in the Department's CRU. In the June 13, 2008 memorandum, the Department:
(1)Determined that we would not address Petitioners' or Bridgestone's uncreditworthiness allegation against Starbright that both raised in their respective briefs;
(2)determined that information in Starbright's rebuttal brief was not new factual information;
(3)determined that information submitted by Bridgestone in its rebuttal brief was not new factual information; and
(4)clarified that Bridgestone's comments regarding market distortions in its June 9, 2008 rebuttal brief were allowed as part of the arguments concerning whether the sale of Hebei Tire was for fair market value. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 2006. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by the scope of this investigation are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road
(OTR)and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. In the *Preliminary Determination,* we stated that we had received comments on the scope of the investigation from a number of parties and that all comments raised by the parties would be addressed in the companion antidumping investigation. On May 14, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum regarding the scope of both the AD and CVD Investigations on OTR Tires from the PRC, addressing the scope comments submitted by multiple interested parties. *See Preliminary Determination: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations (Preliminary Scope Determination).* In the *Preliminary Scope Determination,* we made certain modifications to the scope of the investigation and invited interested parties to comment on these modifications. Interested parties submitted comments on the *Preliminary Scope Determination* on May 22, 2008 and rebuttal comments on May 27, 2008. Based on these comments, we have made certain clarifications to the scope of the investigation. These clarifications, as well as a complete description of all products covered by the scope of this investigation, and a list of excluded products, are reflected in the *Final Scope of the Investigation* which is appended to this notice at Appendix I. All comments submitted on the *Preliminary Scope Determination* are addressed in the *Scope Comments* section of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China (Issues and Decision Memorandum)* , which is issued concurrently with this notice. Critical Circumstances On March 11, 2008, Petitioners submitted a timely critical circumstances allegation. On April 22, 2008, the Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances did not exist for imports of OTR tires from the PRC. *See Notice of Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China,* 73 FR 21588 (April 22, 2008) ( *Critical Circumstances Notice* ). Pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in order for critical circumstances to exist, the Department must find that there are countervailable subsidies that are inconsistent with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ( *SCM Agreement* ) ( *i.e.* , import substitution subsidies or export subsidies), and that there have been massive imports over a relatively short period ( *i.e.* , whether there was a surge in imports). Based on our analyses of the results of verification and the comments submitted by the parties, we have determined that none of the respondents have received subsidies inconsistent with the *SCM Agreement.* We therefore need not reach the issue of whether there have been massive imports over a relatively short period of time. Since the requirements of section 705(a)(2) of the Act have not been met, we determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of OTR tires from the PRC. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs and rebuttal briefs on the *Preliminary Determination,* the *Post-Preliminary Analysis,* and the *CIO Memorandum,* are discussed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum.* A list of the subsidy programs and of the issues that parties have raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Parties can find a complete discussion of all of the subsidy programs and issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's CRU. A complete version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* is available at *http://www.trade.gov/ia* under the heading “ **Federal Register** Notices.” The paper copy and the electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determine the total net countervailable subsidy rates to be: Producer/Exporter Net subsidy rate (percent) Guizhou Tire Co., Ltd.
(GTC)2.45 Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (Starbright) 14.00 Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (TUTRIC) 6.85 All-Others 5.62 In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have calculated the all others rate based on a weighted average of the three mandatory respondents' calculated rates. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and
(2)of the Act, we directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of OTR tires from the PRC that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 17, 2007. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 15, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from December 17, 2007 through April 14, 2008. If the ITC issues a final affirmative determination of injury, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act for all entries, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise at the rates indicated above. 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: July 7, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I: Final Scope of the Investigation The products covered by the scope are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road
(OTR)and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to:
(1)Agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors, 3 combine harvesters, 4 agricultural high clearance sprayers, 5 industrial tractors, 6 log-skidders, 7 agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-loaders; 8
(2)construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks, 9 front end loaders, 10 dozers, 11 lift trucks, straddle carriers, 12 graders, 13 mobile cranes, 14 compactors; and
(3)industrial vehicles and equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks. 15 The foregoing list of vehicles and equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. Such vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions contained in the footnotes are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. 3 Agricultural tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull farming equipment in the field and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires. 4 Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or wheat. 5 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural fields 6 Industrial tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull industrial equipment and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires. 7 A log-skidder has a grappling lift arm that is used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill or other destination. 8 Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles with the left-side drive wheels independent of the right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie alongside the driver with the major pivot points behind the driver's shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are used in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. 9 Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or articulated ( *i.e.* , able to bend in the middle) are typically used in mines, quarries and construction sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 10 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. They can scrape material from one location to another, carry material in their buckets, or load material into a truck or trailer. 11 A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around construction sites. They can also be used to perform “rough grading” in road construction. 12 A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine that is used to load and offload containers from container vessels and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 13 A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used to perform “finish grading.” Graders are commonly used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road construction to prepare the base course onto which asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 14 *i.e.* , “on-site” mobile cranes designed for off-highway use. 15 A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid framed, engine-powered machine with lift arms that has additional weight incorporated into the back of the machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction sites, mines, etc. While the physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are designed ( *e.g.* , tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the proceeding range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type 16 or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. 16 While tube-type tires are subject to the scope of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject merchandise and therefore are not covered by the scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner in which they are sold ( *e.g.* sold with or separately from subject merchandise). Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association: Prefix letter designations: • P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars; • LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and, • ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service. Suffix letter designations: • TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156” or plus 0.250”; • MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; • HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15” tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation. • Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; • LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and • MC—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles. The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed for use in mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds). Appendix II: Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Subsidies Valuation IV. Analysis of Programs A. *Programs Determined To Be Countervailable* 1. Government Provision of Rubber for Less than Adequate Remuneration. 2. Government Policy Lending 3. Government Debt Forgiveness to TUTRIC 4. Government Debt Forgiveness and the Provision of Land to Starbright Pursuant to Its Change in Ownership 5. Stamp Tax Exemption on Share Transfers under NTSR 6. Tax Subsidies to FIEs in Specially Designated Geographic Areas, and Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs 7. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries 8. State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund B. *Programs Determined To Be Not Countervailable* C. *Programs Determined To Not Confer a Benefit During the POI* D. *Programs Determined To Be Not Used* E. *Program Determined To Be Terminated* V. Analysis of Comments A. *General Issues including Applicability of the CVD Law to the PRC, Cut-Off Date, and Double Remedies* Comment A.1: Application of the CVD Law to Non-Market Economies, Including the PRC Comment A.2: Application of the CVD Law to the PRC is Consistent With the APA Comment A.3: Whether Simultaneous Application of CVD Law in This Investigation and NME Methodology in the Parallel Antidumping Investigation Imposes Double Trade Remedies Comment A.4: Whether December 11, 2001, is the Appropriate Date From Which the Department May Measure Subsidies in the PRC B. *Attribution of Subsidies and Cross-Ownership* Comment B.1: Attribution of Subsidies to, and Cross-Ownership of, TUTRIC/DCB C. *Whether GTC and TUTRIC Are SOEs* Comment C.1: Whether GTC Is an SOE Comment C.2: Whether TUTRIC Is an SOE D. *Government Provision of Rubber for Less Than Adequate Remuneration* Comment D.1: Whether the GOC's Provision of Rubber Is Specific Comment D.2: Whether the GOC's Provision of Rubber Confers a Financial Contribution Comment D.3: GOC Control of the Rubber Market Comment D.4: Purchases of SOE-Produced Rubber Through Private Trading Companies Comment D.5: Whether Imported Rubber Is Countervailable Comment D.6: Rubber Benchmark Comment D.7: Adjustments to Rubber Calculation E. *Government Policy Lending and Government Debt Forgiveness* Comment E.1: Specificity Comment E.2: SOCBs and Financial Contribution Comment E.3: Role of the GOC in the PRC Banking System and Whether To Use an Internal or External Benchmark Comment E.4: Issues Regarding Building an External Benchmark Comment E.5: Whether Government Policy Lending to GTC Is Countervailable Comment E.6: Whether There Was a Financial Contribution to TUTRIC Comment E.7: Whether TUTRIC's Loans From Certain Other Banks Were Forgiven F. *Starbright-Specific Issues* Comment F.1: Due Process Comment F.2: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available Comment F.3: Application of the CIO Methodology Comment F.4: The Arm's Length Nature of the Transaction Comment F.5: The Purchase of Hebei Tire's Assets Was for Fair Market Value Comment F.6: Whether Starbright Purchased “Substantially All” of Hebei Tire's Assets Comment F.7: Whether the Department Erred in Finding that Hebei Tire's Non-Recurring Subsidies Pass Through to Starbright Comment F.8: Whether Any Benefit Found by the Department Should Be Limited to the Difference Between the Appraised Value and the Value Paid Comment F.9: Debt Forgiveness—Unpaid Loans and Other Primary Debt Comment F.10: Debt Forgiveness—Loan Guarantee Obligations Comment F.11: The Countervailability of Starbright's Granted Land Use Rights Comment F.12: The Countervailability of Starbright's Land Leased From Local Villages Comment F.13: Submission of New Factual Information G. *Other Countervailable Programs* Comment G.1: Whether Non-Tradeable Share Reform
(NTSR)Is Specific Comment G.2: Whether GTC Received a Benefit From the Transfer of Bonus Shares to Its Tradeable Shareholders Under NTSR Comment G.3: Whether GTC Received a Benefit From the GOC's Exemption of Stamp Taxes on Share Transfers Under NTSR Comment G.4: Whether GTC Received a Benefit From the GOC's Exemption of Income Taxes on Income Derived Under NTSR Comment G.5: FIE Tax Exemptions Comment G.6: Value Added Tax and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment Comment G.7: State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund H. *Government Provision of Land* Comment H.1: Whether the GOC's Provision of Land Is a Financial Contribution Comment H.2: Cut-Off Date for Acquisition of Land-Use Rights Comment H.3: Whether the GOC's Provision of Land Is a Recurring Benefit Comment H.4: TUTRIC Land Countervailability Comment H.5: Whether the GOC's Provision of Land to TUTRIC and GTC Is Specific Comment H.6: Whether the GOC's Land-Use Rights System Operated on Market Principles During the POI Comment H.7: Land Benchmark I. *Not Countervailable Programs* Comment I.1: VAT Export Rebates J. *Scope Comments* Comment J.1: Imported Wheel Mounted Tires Certifications Comment J.2: OTR Agricultural Tires, Including for Highway-Towed Implements Comment J.3: Tubes and Flaps Comment J.4: Earthmoving, Mining, and Construction Tires VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. E8-16154 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2008. SUMMARY: On February 20, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) in the antidumping investigation of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV and the post-preliminary determinations. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. We determine that OTR tires from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6412 or
(202)482-0650, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on February 20, 2008. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination* , 73 FR 9278 (February 20, 2008) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). The Department issued a ministerial error allegation memorandum, in which it agreed to correct several ministerial errors for the final determination. *See* Memorandum entitled “Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Allegations of Ministerial Errors,” dated March 28, 2008 (“Ministerial Error Memo”). On April 21, 2008, the Department published an affirmative preliminary determination of critical circumstances. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* , 73 FR 21312, (April 21, 2008), (“ *Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* ”). Between March 25 and April 25, 2008, the Department conducted verifications of Starbright, 1 Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”), 2 Xugong, 3 and Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Guizhou Tyre”). 4 *See* the “Verification” section below for additional information. 1 *See* Verification of the Factors Response of Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, dated May 5, 2008 (“Starbright Verification Report”); and Verification of Constructed Export Sales (“CEP”) for Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (“Starbright”) at GPX International Tire Corporation (“GPX7rdquo;), dated May 15, 2008 (“Starbright CEP Verification Report”). 2 *See* Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of TUTRIC in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, dated May 2, 2008 (“TUTRIC Verification Report”). 3 *See* Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China dated May 12, 2008 (“Xugong Verification Report”). 4 *See* Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Guizhou Tyre in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China dated May 9, 2008 (“Guizhou Tyre Verification Report”). On May 14, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum regarding the scope of both the AD and CVD Investigations on OTR Tires from the PRC, addressing the scope comments submitted by multiple interested parties. *See Preliminary Determination: Comments on the Scope of the Investigations (“Preliminary Scope Determination”)* . The Department issued a post-preliminary determination on May 19, 2008, in which it applied a new targeted dumping methodology. See Memorandum entitled “Post-Preliminary Determinations on Targeted Dumping,” dated May 19, 2008 (“Targeted Dumping Determination”). On May 19, 2008, the Department also preliminarily granted separate-rate status to two separate rate applicants, Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd. (“Aonuo”) and Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd. (“Kenda China”). *See* Memorandum entitled “Preliminary Determination of Separate-Rate Status of Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd. and Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,” dated May 19, 2008. We invited interested parties to comment on the *Preliminary Determination, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* , and the post-preliminary scope, targeted dumping, and separate rate determinations. On May 22, 2008, multiple interested parties filed case briefs with respect to the scope of the AD and concurrent countervailing duty
(CVD)proceeding. On May 27, 2008, many of these same parties filed rebuttal comments regarding the scope of these two proceedings. In addition, on May 27, 2008, multiple interested parties filed case briefs with respect to issues specific to the AD proceeding. These same parties filed rebuttal briefs on June 2, 2008. The Department held two hearings on June 12, 2008, one solely related to the scope of the AD and CVD proceedings and the second to address issues related solely to the AD investigation. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Starbright, Guizhou Tyre, TUTRIC, and Xugong for use in our final determination. *See* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 1117 of the main Department building, with respect to these entities. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by respondents. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this notice and, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the CRU, and is accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of information on the record of this investigation, we have made changes to the margin calculations for the final determination for all mandatory respondents. General Issues • We have updated the wholesale price index adjustor for the POI, which modified the inflated values for steam, water, electricity, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and truck freight rate. *See* “Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,” dated July 7, 2008 (“Final SV Memo”). • We have corrected linking errors in the inflator adjustments for marine insurance and Essar Steel's brokerage and handling. *See* Final SV Memo. • We corrected an averaging error in the calculation of the surrogate value for water. *See* Final SV Memo. • We corrected the rail rate used in the company-specific rail freight to be based on metric ton. *See* Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination: Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. (“Xugong”), dated July 7, 2008 (“Xugong Final Analysis Memo”) and Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination: Guizhou Tyre and its affiliates, dated July 7, 2008 (“Guizhou Tyre Final Analysis Memo”). • We have updated the PRC labor wage rate. *See* Final SV Memo. • We have used the following four financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios: CEAT Limited (“Ceat”); Falcon Tyres Ltd. (“Falcon”); Goodyear India Limited (“Goodyear”); and TVS Srichakra (“TVS”). See Comments 17.A and 17.B in the Issues and Decision Memo dated concurrently with this notice. • We have valued steam using the natural gas price reported in a May 2005 publication of *Financial Express* . We have inflated the resulting steam value by applying the appropriate WPI inflator. • We have made the following changes to the surrogate financial ratio calculations: ◦ *CEAT:* 1) We treated a) Sale of Scrap and b) Miscellaneous income as SG&A; and 2) we excluded Rebates and Discounts from the surrogate ratio calculations. *See* Final SV Memo, and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 18.B and 18.C. ◦ *Falcon:* 1) We treated a) Sale of Scrap and b) Miscellaneous income as SG&A; and 2) we excluded Discount from the surrogate ratio calculations. *See* Final SV Memo and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 18.B and 18.C. ◦ *Goodyear:* 1) We treated a) Scrap Sale, b) One time settlement from vendor(s), and c) Unidentified Miscellaneous Income as SG&A; 2) we excluded Target Plus Export Incentives from the surrogate ratio calculations; 3) we treated Retirement Gratuities as direct labor; and 4) we included Purchase of Finished Goods in the denominator of Goodyear's SG&A and profit ratio calculations. *See* Final SV Memo, and Ministerial Error Memorandum, and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 18.B and 18.G. ◦ *TVS:* 1) We treated a) Miscellaneous Sales and b) Miscellaneous Income as part of SG&A; and 2) we treated Gratuity as direct labor. *See* Final SV Memo and Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.B and 18.G. • We have revised the calculation of U.S. price for Guizhou Tyre and Starbright to include a deduction for warehousing expenses based on the average days subject merchandise is in inventory. See Final SV Memo, Guizhou Tyre Final Analysis Memo, and Starbright Final Analysis Memo. Company-Specific Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Xugong: *See* Xugong Final Analysis Memo. Guizhou Tyre: *See* Guizhou Tyre Final Analysis Memo. Starbright: *See* Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination: Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd., dated July 7, 2008. TUTRIC: *See* Analysis Memorandum for the Final Determination: Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd., dated July 7, 2008. Scope of Investigation The products covered by the scope of this investigation are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road
(OTR)and off-highway use, subject to certain exceptions. In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had received comments on the scope of the investigation from a number of parties and that all comments raised by the parties would be addressed in a post-preliminary scope determination. On May 14, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum regarding the scope of both the AD and CVD Investigations on OTR Tires from the PRC, addressing the scope comments submitted by multiple interested parties. *See Preliminary Scope Determination* . In the *Preliminary Scope Determination* , we made certain modifications to the scope of the investigation and invited interested parties to comment on these modifications. Interested parties submitted comments on the *Preliminary Scope Determination* on May 22, 2008 and rebuttal comments on May 27, 2008. Based on these comments, we have made certain clarifications to the scope of the investigation. These clarifications, as well as a complete description of all products covered by the scope of this investigation, and a list of excluded products, are reflected in the *Final Scope of the Investigation* which is appended to this notice at Appendix I. All comments submitted on the *Preliminary Scope Determination* are addressed in the *Scope Comments* section of the Issues and Decision. Targeted Dumping We have analyzed the case and rebuttal briefs with respect to targeted dumping issues submitted for the record in this investigation. As a result of our analysis, we made certain changes in the targeted dumping test we applied for purposes of the final determination. These changes result in a finding of targeted dumping for Xugong, but not for Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, and TUTRIC. For further discussion, *see* Comments 23.A through 23.H in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. As indicated below, for Guizhou Tyre, Starbright, and TUTRIC, we continue to find overall dumping margins above *de minimis* . *See* Guizhou Tyre Final Analysis Memo, Starbright Final Analysis Memo, and TUTRIC Final Analysis Memo, respectively. Further, as indicated below, we find that Xugong's overall margin is zero. *See* Xugong Final Analysis Memo. Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination* , we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:
(1)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise;
(2)it is at a similar level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination* . For the final determination, we received no comments and made no changes to our findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that Starbright, Guizhou Tyre, TUTRIC, Xugong and 23 separate rate-applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status (collectively, “Separate-Rate Recipients”). On May 19, 2008, as discussed above, we granted separate-rate status to two additional applicants, Aonuo and Kenda China; thus, they are now part of the pool of Separate-Rate Recipients. For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Starbright, Guizhou Tyre, TUTRIC, Xugong and the remaining Separate Rate Recipients demonstrate both a *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate rate status. Additionally, based on comments received from certain Separate Rate Recipients, and a review of the record, we found that the combination rates or the spelling of names for certain exporters were not properly included in the *Preliminary Determination* . Because these errors pertain to the identification of the proper separate rates recipients for this investigation, the Department is making these corrections effective as of February 20, 2008, the date of the *Preliminary Determination* . The companies whose names have been corrected are identified with an “=” in the “ *Final Determination Margins* ” section, below. Any liquidation instructions for the provisional measures period will reflect these corrections. Use of Facts Available 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 subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(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(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party “promptly after receiving a request from {the Department} for information, notifies {the Department} that such party is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is able to submit the information,” the Department may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), 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) 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. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)* , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). For this final determination, in accordance with sections 773(c)(3)(A) and
(B)of the Act and section s776(a)(2)(A),
(B)and
(D)and 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted for the PRC entity, as discussed below. The PRC-Wide Rate Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other 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 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents identified as receiving a separate rate in the “Final Determination Margins” section below. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information because record evidence indicates there were more exporters of OTR tires from the PRC during the POI than those that responded to the Q&V questionnaire or the full antidumping questionnaire. Therefore, in the *Preliminary Determination* we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their export activities. No additional information was placed on the record with respect to these entities after the *Preliminary Determination* . In addition, because the PRC-wide entity has not provided the Department with the requested information; pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). *See also, SAA* at 870. We have determined that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have interpreted “corroborate” to mean that we will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information submitted. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil* , 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, *e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). At the *Preliminary Determination* , in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated our adverse facts available (“AFA”) margin by comparing the U.S. prices and normal values from the petition to the U.S. price and normal values for the respondents. *See* Memorandum “Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Determination,” dated February 5, 2008. Similarly, for the final determination, we have also compared the U.S. prices and normal values from the petition to the U.S. prices and normal values for the respondents. We found that the U.S. prices and normal values used to calculate the petition margin were within the range of net U.S. prices and normal values, respectively, used in our margin calculations for the mandatory respondents in this investigation. Because no parties commented on the selection of the PRC-wide rate, we continue to find that the margin of 210.48 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 210.48 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Critical Circumstances In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that critical circumstances exist for the PRC entity, however, we did not find that critical circumstances exist with respect to the mandatory respondents or the Separate Rate Recipients. We continue to find that critical circumstances exist for the PRC entity, and we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for the mandatory respondents or the remaining Separate Rate Recipients. *See* Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: OTR Tires from the PRC Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.* Guizhou Advance Rubber 4.08 Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd.* Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. 4.08 Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd./GPX International Tire Corporation, Ltd. ∧ Hebei Starbright Co., Ltd. 19.15 Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”)* Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”) 8.09 Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. * = Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. = 0.00 Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. * Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Double Coin Holdings Ltd. * Double Coin Holdings Ltd. 9.48 Double Coin Holdings Ltd. * Double Coin Group Rugao Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Double Coin Holdings Ltd. * Double Coin Group Shanghai Donghai Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd. * Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd. 9.48 Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd. * Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd. 9.48 Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd./Kenda Global Holding Co., Ltd (Cayman Islands) Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd. 9.48 KS Holding Limited ∧ Oriental Tyre Technology Ltd. 9.48 KS Holding Limited ∧ Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 KS Holding Limited ∧ Xu Zhou Xugong Tyres Co., Ltd. 9.48 Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. * Laizhou Xiongying Rubber Industry Co., Ltd. 9.48 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited + Midland Off the Road Tire Co., Ltd. 9.48 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited + Midland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd. 9.48 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited + Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd. Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd. * Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd. * Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd. * Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Eastern Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Yellowsea Tyre Factory 9.48 Qingdao Free Trade Zone Full-World International Trading Co., Ltd. * Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd.* Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd. * Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd. * Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd. * Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd. 9.48 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd. * Tengzhou Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd.= 9.48 Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd. * Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd. * Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd. *= Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd. = 9.48 Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.* Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd. * Shangdong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd. * Xingyuan Tyre Group Co., Ltd. 9.48 Techking Tires Limited *= Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd. 9.48 Techking Tires Limited *= Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd. 9.48 Techking Tires Limited *= Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd. 9.48 Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd. * Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd.* Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd. 9.48 Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co., Ltd. * Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co., Ltd. 9.48 PRC-Entity 210.48 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the following dates:
(1)for Starbright, TUTRIC, Guizhou Tyre and the separate rate companies, on or after February 20, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** ,
(2)for the PRC-wide entity, on or after November 22, 2007, which is 90 days prior to the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* (consistent with our finding that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity). 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 margins shown above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Because the Department found that the weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise produced and exported by Xugong is zero, we are instructing CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Xugong, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 20, 2008, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . CBP shall refund any cash deposit and release any bond or other security previously posted in connection with merchandise produced and exported by Xugong. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC 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, within 45 days 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. 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 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: July 7, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Proceeding Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations On Off-The-Road Tires from the PRC The products covered by the scope are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road
(OTR)and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to:
(1)agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors, 5 combine harvesters, 6 agricultural high clearance sprayers, 7 industrial tractors, 8 log-skidders, 9 agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-loaders; 10
(2)construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks, 11 front end loaders, 12 dozers, 13 lift trucks, straddle carriers, 14 graders, 15 mobile cranes, 16 compactors; and
(3)industrial vehicles and equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks. 17 The foregoing list of vehicles and equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. Such vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions contained in the footnotes are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are designed ( *e.g.* , tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the proceeding range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type 18 or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. 5 Agricultural tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull farming equipment in the field and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires. 6 Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or wheat. 7 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural fields 8 Industrial tractors are dual-axle vehicles that typically are designed to pull industrial equipment and that may have front tires of a different size than the rear tires. 9 A log-skidder has a grappling lift arm that is used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill or other destination. 10 Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles with the left-side drive wheels independent of the right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie alongside the driver with the major pivot points behind the driver's shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are used in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. 11 Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or articulated ( *i.e.* , able to bend in the middle) are typically used in mines, quarries and construction sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 12 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. They can scrape material from one location to another, carry material in their buckets, or load material into a truck or trailer. 13 A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of soil, sand, rubble, *etc.* , typically around construction sites. They can also be used to perform “rough grading” in road construction. 14 A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine that is used to load and offload containers from container vessels and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 15 A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used to perform “finish grading.” Graders are commonly used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road construction to prepare the base course onto which asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 16 *i.e.* , “on-site” mobile cranes designed for off-highway use. 17 A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid framed, engine-powered machine with lift arms that has additional weight incorporated into the back of the machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction sites, mines, *etc.* 18 While tube-type tires are subject to the scope of this proceeding, tubes and flaps are not subject merchandise and therefore are not covered by the scope of this proceeding, regardless of the manner in which they are sold ( *e.g.* sold with or separately from subject merchandise). Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association: Prefix letter designations: • P - Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars; • LT - Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and, • ST - Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service. Suffix letter designations: • TR - Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″; • MH - Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; • HC - Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15” tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation. • Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; • LT - Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and • MC - Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles. The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed for use in mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds). Appendix II I. General Issues *Comment 1:* Whether the Department Should Apply Market-Economy Calculation Methodologies in this Investigation *Comment 2:* Whether the Dual Application of the Non-Market Economy AD Methodology and the Market-Economy CVD Methodology Results in Double Remedies *Comment 3:* Treatment of Corrections from Verifications *Comment 4:* Ministerial Error Corrections *Comment 5:* Wage Rate Methodology *Comment 6:* Adjustment for Un-refunded Value Added Taxes *Comment 7:* Treatment of Respondents' Packing Labor General Surrogate Value Issues *Comment 8:* Standard for Accepting Respondents' Proposed HTS Categories *Comment 9:* Treatment of Aberrational Data in Certain Surrogate Values *Comment 10:* Reliability of *Infodrive India* Data *Comment 11:* Surrogate Value Source for Steam *Comment 12:* Natural Rubber Surrogate Value *Comment 13:* Steam Coal Surrogate Value *Comment 14:* Carbon Black Surrogate Value *Comment 15:* Surrogate Value Source for Electricity *Comment 16:* Use of Electricity-Specific Inflation Index Surrogate Financial Statements *Comment 17:* Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements *Comment 17.A:* Use of Financial Statements of Surrogate Companies That May Have Received Government Subsidies *Comment 17.B:* Use of TVS's Financial Statement *Comment 18:* Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 18.A:* Treatment of Rental Receipts in TVS's Financial Statement *Comment 18.B:* Treatment of “Miscellaneous Income” in Goodyear's Financial Statements *Comment 18.C:* Treatment of Discounts and Rebates in the SG&A Ratio Calculation based on CEAT's Financial Statement *Comment 18.D:* Offset for Interest Revenue in Goodyear's Financial Statement *Comment 18.E:* Treatment of “Less transfer from revaluation reserve” in Falcon's Financial Statement *Comment 18.F:* Treatment of “Conversion Charges” in CEAT, Falcon, and Goodyear's Financial Statements *Comment 18.G:* Treatment of “Labor Costs” in CEAT, Falcon, Goodyear and TVS's Financial Statements *Comment 18.H:* Treatment of Non-Production-Related Energy and Utility Consumption II. Scope Issues *Comment 19:* Imported Wheel Mounted Tires Certifications *Comment 20:* OTR Agricultural Tires, Including for Highway-Towed Implements *Comment 21:* Tubes and Flaps *Comment 22:* Earthmoving, Mining, and Construction Tires III. Targeted Dumping Issues *Comment 23:* Targeted Dumping *Comment 23.A:* Whether the Department Should Reject the Targeted Dumping Allegation Filed by Bridgestone *Comment 23.B:* Whether the Targeted Dumping Test Used by the Department is Flawed and Should be Replaced *Comment 23.C:* Whether the Department Should Use the “P/2 Test” to Test for Targeted Dumping *Comment 23.D:* Whether the Department Should Use the “T-Test” to Test for Targeted Dumping *Comment 23.E:* If the Department Continues to Use its *Nails* Test, Whether it Should Permit Certain Margins to be Offset with Negative Margins *Comment 23.F:* Treatment of Xugong's Sales *Comment 23.G:* Programming Errors *Comment 23.H:* Changes based on *TD Methodology* IV. Critical Circumstances *Comment 24:* Critical Circumstances V. Issues Specific to Guizhou Tyre *Comment 25:* Guizhou Tyre's Eligibility for a Separate Rate *Comment 26:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Guangzhou Warehouse Expenses *Comment 27:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Reported Manufacturing Overhead Materials *Comment 28:* Calculation of Guizhou Tyre's Domestic Movement Expenses *Comment 29:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Demurrage Charge *Comment 30:* Distance from Guizhou Tyre's Factory to the Guangzhou Warehouse *Comment 31:* Appropriate Unit of Measure for Guizhou Tyre's Reported Water Consumption *Comment 32:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Unreported Labor Hours Discovered at Verification *Comment 33:* Classification of Guizhou Tyre's Sales Made to a Certain U.S. Customer *Comment 34:* Byproduct Offset for Guizhou Tyre *Comment 35:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's International Freight Costs *Comment 36:* Appropriate Classification for Certain Guizhou Tyre Material Inputs *Comment 37:* Calculation of Value of Guizhou Tyre's Carbon Black *Comment 38:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Sales Made Through TED *Comment 39:* Whether to Include Licenses and Taxes in Guizhou Tyre's Indirect Selling Expense Ratio *Comment 40:* Treatment of Guizhou Tyre's Billing Adjustment for Tubes and Flaps VI. Issues Specific to Xugong *Comment 41:* Treatment of Xugong and Its Chinese Affiliates as a Single Entity *Comment 42:* Treatment of Xugong's Sales to API *Comment 43:* Use of Xugong's Upstream Inputs *Comment 43.A:* Rejection of Armour Rubber's Upstream Inputs *Comment 43.B:* Adjustments of Xugong's Upstream Inputs *Comment 44:* Valuation of Xugong's FOPs from Intermediate Inputs Database *Comment 45:* Valuation of Xugong's FOPs from Upstream Inputs Database *Comment 46:* Treatment of Sales with Improperly Reported Tread Code *Comment 47:* Treatment of Xugong's Factor as Wood Tar or Pine Oil VII. Issues Common to Starbright and TUTRIC *Comment 48.A:* Whether TUTRIC and GPX are Affiliated *Comment 48.B:* Whether TUTRIC and Starbright Should be Collapsed *Comment 49:* Surrogate Value Sources for Scrap Rubber, Reclaimed Rubber, Rubber Powder and Wire *Comment 50:* The Application of AFA for Sales of Tires Greater Than 39 Inches for Starbright and TUTRIC VIII. Issues Specific to Starbright *Comment 51:* Start-Up Adjustment for Starbright *Comment 52:* Starbright Argues that the Department Should Adjust Normal Value for a CEP Offset and Differences in Circumstances of Sale *Comment 53:* Investigation of Starbright's Sales Below Cost Should the Department Determines that Starbright Warrants MOE Treatment *Comment 54:* Treatment of Unreported Sales of Subject Merchandise *Comment 55:* Reliability of Starbright's Reported U.S. Sales Prices *Comment 56:* Treatment of Starbright's Early Payment Discounts *Comment 57:* Treatment of Tanggu Warehouse Expenses as an Adjustment to U.S. Price *Comment 58:* Minor Correction to Freight-In Expenses *Comment 59:* The Nature of WARR2U *Comment 60:* Expenses Included in U.S. Duty *Comment 61:* U.S. Warehousing Expenses *Comment 62:* Dutiable Assists *Comment 63:* Direct Labor Hours *Comment 64:* Starbright's Indirect Labor Hours *Comment 65:* Ministerial Errors With Respect to U.S. Credit Expenses *Comment 66:* Marine Insurance *Comment 67:* Correct Names for Certain Separate Rates Parties for Customs Instructions *Comment 68:* Time Period for Measuring Starbright's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses *Comment 69:* Inclusion of Post-POI Credit Notes in the Section C Database *Comment 70:* Purchases of Market-Economy Inputs from PRC Trading Companies as Market Economy Purchases *Comment 71:* Allocation Methodology for U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses *Comment 72:* Expenses Excluded from the Calculation of ISE *Comment 73:* Starbright's U.S. Inland Freight Expense *Comment 74:* The Adequacy of Starbright's Reported Material Consumption Standards, Variance Calculations and FOP Consumption Rate *Comment 75:* Market-Economy Methodology for Starbright *Comment 76:* Time Period For Determining ICC For Starbright's Retail Stores IX. Issues Specific to TUTRIC *Comment 77:* TUTRIC's Eligibility for a Separate Rate *Comment 78:* TUTRIC's Sales to GPX Delivered to the Tanggu Warehouse *Comment 79:* Sales and FOPs for Tubes and Flaps for TUTRIC *Comment 80:* Treatment of Indirect Labor Hours for TUTRIC *Comment 81:* Additional Calculation Errors With Respect to TUTRIC *Comment 82:* The Adequacy of TUTRIC's Reported Material Consumption Standards, Variance Calculations and FOP Consumption Rate [FR Doc. E8-16156 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. This review covers 201 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR)is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. We are rescinding the review with respect to four companies because these companies had no reportable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” DATES: *Effective Date:* July 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, 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)482-3874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 201 producers/exporters. 1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Devi Sea Foods Limited
(Devi)and Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. On March 6, 2008, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from India. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 73 FR 12103 (Mar. 6, 2008) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In April 2008, we received case briefs from the petitioner ( *i.e.* , the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee), the respondents ( *i.e.* , Devi, Falcon, and Uniroyal Marine Exports Limited, a company not selected for individual review), and the Louisiana Shrimp Association (LSA). Also in April 2008, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Devi, and Falcon. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, 2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 2 “Tails” in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *Penaeidae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *Penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *Penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *Penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *Macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *Penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *Penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *Penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp ( *Penaeus notialis* ), southern rough shrimp ( *Trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *Penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *Penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *Penaeus occidentalis* ), and Indian white prawn ( *Penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20);
(2)shrimp and prawns generally classified in the *Pandalidae* family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing;
(3)fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);
(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10);
(5)dried shrimp and prawns;
(6)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40);
(7)certain dusted shrimp; and
(8)certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product:
(1)That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp;
(2)to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied;
(3)with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour;
(4)with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and
(5)that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. Partial Rescission of Review In February 2007, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), from the petitioner and the LSA to conduct a review of many Indian producers/exporters, including four affiliated Indian producers/exporters of subject merchandise collectively known as “the Kadalkanny Group” ( *i.e.* , Kadalkanny Frozen Foods (Kadalkanny), Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Edhayam), Diamond Seafood Exports (Diamond), and Theva & Co. (Theva)). The Department initiated a review of these four companies and requested that they supply data on the quantity and value (Q&V) of their exports of shrimp during the POR. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 72 FR 17100 (Apr. 6, 2007). On April 23, 2007, the Kadalkanny Group submitted a consolidated response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, in which it indicated that only one of its members ( *i.e.* , Kadalkanny) exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Both the petitioner and the LSA withdrew their administrative review requests for Kadalkanny. Moreover, we confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)the claims made by two additional members of this group, Diamond and Theva, that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Finally, on January 17 and February 7, 2008, we received information from Edhayam which demonstrated that its sole entry of subject merchandise during the POR was not a reportable transaction because it was a free sample, for which Edhayam received no remuneration. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to the Kadalkanny Group. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005). Successor-in-Interest As noted in the *Preliminary Results* , in April and May 2007, two of the producers/exporters named in the notice of initiation, Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine Exports (Surya Marine), informed the Department that, prior to the POR, they changed their names and are now doing business under the names Asvini Fisheries Private Limited (Asvini) and Suryamitra Exim Private Limited (Suryamitra), respectively. Based on Asvini's and Suryamitra's submissions addressing the four factors with respect to this change in corporate structure ( *i.e.* , management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier relationships, and customer base), 3 in the preliminary results we preliminarily found that these companies' organizational structure, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we found that Asvini operates as the same business entity as Asvini Fisheries Limited with respect to the production and sale of shrimp and that Suryamitra operates as the same business entity as Surya Marine. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that Asvini and Suryamitra are the successors-in-interest to Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine, respectively. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12105-06. 3 *See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 50299, 50300-01 (Aug. 26, 2005) (setting forth the four factors to be considered for successorship determinations), unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 59721 (Oct. 13, 2005). Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue, and we have received no new information with respect to this issue. As a result, we continue to find that Asvini and Suryamitra are the successors-in-interest to Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine, respectively. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for 127 producers/exporters. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12107-08. These companies are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice under the heading “AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies.” Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party:
(1)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department;
(3)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(4)provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In April 2007, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 23, 2007. Of the 319 companies initially subject to review, numerous companies did not respond to the Department's initial requests for information. Subsequently, in May 2007 and then again in June 2007, the Department issued letters to these companies affording them additional opportunities to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, 126 companies also failed to respond to the Department's final requests for Q&V data. 4 On February 25, 2008, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaires to each of these companies. *See* the memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Placing Delivery Information on the Record of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated February 25, 2008. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the Department finds that the use of total facts available is warranted. 4 These companies are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice under the heading “AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies.” Further, one additional company, Gajula, claimed that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of Gajula's claim with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from this exporter. Gajula responded to the Department's inquiry via e-mail on August 16, 2007, but did not indicate if its submission contained either public or business proprietary information. Therefore, on August 16, 2007, we informed Gajula via e-mail of the Department's filing requirements. *See* the memorandum to the File from Nichole Zink, Analyst, entitled, “Placing E-mail to Gajula Exim
(P)Ltd. on the Record in the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated August 16, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Gajula submitted a hard copy of its response, but again failed to follow the Department's filing requirements and failed to indicate if the submission contained business proprietary or public information. On September 7, 2007, we issued a letter to Gajula again informing the company of the Department's filing requirements, providing information regarding the treatment of proprietary information and the preparation of a public version of a response, and requiring it to properly file its response. On September 29, 2007, Gajula faxed a letter to the Department in which it stated that the information contained in its August submission should be treated as business proprietary information. However, Gajula did not indicate the specific information in the August submission which should be designated as business proprietary. As a result, on October 1 and 17, 2007, we provided Gajula additional detailed instructions regarding the treatment of proprietary information and the preparation of a public version of a response, and we again required it to properly file its submissions on the record of this proceeding. *See* the memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Placing October E-Mail Correspondence with Gajula Exim
(P)Ltd. on the Record of the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” dated October 17, 2007. Gajula failed to respond to the Department's October communications and did not remedy the deficiencies in its August submission. Although the Department afforded Gajula multiple opportunities to correct the procedural deficiencies in its response, it failed to do so. By failing to respond to the Department's requests, Gajula withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Consequently, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for Gajula is appropriate. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); * see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil * , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). *See also Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon* ) (“the statute does not contain an intent element”). We find that 126 of the 127 companies listed under the heading “AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies” in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice, below, did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it is reasonable to expect companies to possess information about their own export activities, but these 126 companies failed to respond to the Department's requests for this information. The 127th company, Gajula, failed to respond to the Department's requests to correct the procedural deficiencies in its response, discussed in the “Fact Available” section of this notice, above. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available for all 127 companies. *See Nippon* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from:
(1)The petition;
(2)the final determination in the investigation;
(3)any previous review; or
(4)any other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been 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.” *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 110.90 percent, which was the highest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, to the 127 companies listed below. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 3876, 3880 (Jan. 27, 2004). The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule ( *i.e.* , we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). For the reasons stated in the *Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the corroboration requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12108. *See also* the July 7, 2008, memorandum from Henry Almond to the file entitled, “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for the Final Results in the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.” Cost of Production As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Devi and Falcon made third country sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production
(COP)within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. *See Preliminary Results* , 73 FR at 12111-12112. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the *Preliminary Results* , except as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo). We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. *See* sections 773(b)(1)-(2) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Devi and Falcon made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 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 Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Percent margin Devi Sea Foods Limited *0.35 Falcon Marine Exports Limited 1.69 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 5 Ananda Aqua Exports
(P)Ltd. 1.69 Ananda Foods 1.69 Andaman Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Angelique International Ltd. 1.69 Apex Exports 1.69 Asvini Exports 1.69 Asvini Fisheries Limited/Asvini Fisheries Private Limited 1.69 Avanti Feeds Limited 1.69 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 1.69 Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Calcutta Seafoods 1.69 Castlerock Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Choice Canning Company 1.69 Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Coreline Exports 1.69 Devi Fisheries Limited 1.69 Digha Sea Food Exports 1.69 Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited 1.69 GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Gayatri Sea Foods 1.69 Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Hindustan Lever, Ltd. 1.69 IFB Agro Industries Limited 1.69 ITC Limited, International Business Division 1.69 Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Jaya Lakshmi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 K V Marine Exports 1.69 Kings Marine Products 1.69 Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Magnum Estate Private Limited 1.69 Magnum Export 1.69 Magnum Sea Foods Private Limited 1.69 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Mangala Sea Products 1.69 NGR Aqua International 1.69 Navayuga Exports Ltd. 1.69 Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited 1.69 Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Penver Products
(P)Ltd. 1.69 RVR Marine Products Private Limited 1.69 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Raju Exports 1.69 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. 1.69 S A Exports 1.69 Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Sandhya Marines Limited 1.69 Satya Seafoods Private Limited 1.69 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Selvam Exports Private Limited 1.69 Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports 1.69 Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. 1.69 Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited 1.69 Sun-Bio Technology Limited 1.69 Surya Marine Exports/Suryamitra Exim Private Limited 1.69 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 1.69 Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. 1.69 The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited/Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited/Liberty Oil Mills Limited/Premier Marine Products/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited) 1.69 The Waterbase Ltd. 1.69 Usha Seafoods 1.69 Veejay IMPEX 1.69 Vinner Marine 1.69 Wellcome Fisheries Limited 1.69 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: A.S. Marine Industries Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Adani Exports Ltd. 110.90 Aditya Udyog 110.90 Agri Marine Exports Ltd. 110.90 Al Mustafa Exp & Imp 110.90 Alapatt Marine Exports 110.90 All Seas Marine P. Ltd. 110.90 Alsa Marine & Harvests Ltd. 110.90 Ameena Enterprises 110.90 Anjani Marine Traders 110.90 Aqua Star Marine Foods 110.90 Arsha Seafood Exports Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 ASF Seafoods 110.90 Ashwini Frozen Foods 110.90 Aswin Associates 110.90 Balaji Seafood Exports I Ltd. 110.90 Baraka Overseas Traders 110.90 Bell Foods (Marine Division) 110.90 Bharat Seafoods 110.90 Bhisti Exports 110.90 Bilal Fish Suppliers 110.90 Capital Freezing Complex 110.90 Cham Exports Ltd. 110.90 Cham Ocean Treasures Co., Ltd. 110.90 Cham Trading Organization 110.90 Chand International 110.90 Danda Fisheries 110.90 Dariapur Aquatic Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Deepmala Marine Exports 110.90 Dhanamjaya Impex P. Ltd. 110.90 Dorothy Foods 110.90 El-Te Marine Products 110.90 Excel Ice Services/Chirag Int'l 110.90 Firoz & Company 110.90 Freeze Engineering Industries (Pvt. Ltd.) 110.90 Gajula Exim
(P)Ltd. 110.90 Gausia Cold Storage P. Ltd. 110.90 Goan Bounty 110.90 Gold Farm Foods
(P)Ltd. 110.90 Golden Star Cold Storage 110.90 Gopal Seafoods 110.90 Gtc Global Ltd. 110.90 Hanswati Exports P. Ltd. 110.90 HMG Industries Ltd. 110.90 Honest Frozen Food Company 110.90 India CMS Adani Exports 110.90 India Seafoods 110.90 Indian Seafood Corporation 110.90 Interfish 110.90 J R K Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Kaushalya Aqua Marine Product Exports Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Keshodwala Foods 110.90 Key Foods 110.90 King Fish Industries 110.90 Konkan Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Lakshmi Marine Products 110.90 Lansea Foods Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Laxmi Narayan Exports 110.90 M K Exports 110.90 M.R.H. Trading Company 110.90 Malabar Marine Exports 110.90 Mamta Cold Storage 110.90 Marina Marine Exports 110.90 Marine Food Packers 110.90 Miki Exports International 110.90 Mumbai Kamgar MGSM Ltd. 110.90 N.C. Das & Company 110.90 Naik Ice & Cold Storage 110.90 Nas Fisheries Pvt Ltd. 110.90 National Seafoods Company 110.90 New Royal Frozen Foods 110.90 Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Omsons Marines Ltd. 110.90 Padmaja Exports 110.90 Partytime Ice Pvt Ltd. 110.90 Philips Foods India Pvt Ltd. 110.90 Premier Exports International 110.90 R K Ice & Cold Storage 110.90 Rahul Foods
(GOA)110.90 Rahul International 110.90 Raj International 110.90 Ramalmgeswara Proteins & Foods Ltd. 110.90 Rameshwar Cold Storage 110.90 Ravi Frozen Foods Ltd. 110.90 Regent Marine Industries 110.90 Relish Foods 110.90 Royal Link Exports 110.90 Rubian Exports 110.90 Ruby Marine Foods 110.90 Ruchi Worldwide 110.90 S K Exports
(P)Ltd. 110.90 SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 S S International 110.90 Sabri Food Products 110.90 Sagar Samrat Seafoods 110.90 Salet Seafoods Pvt Ltd. 110.90 Samrat Middle East Exports
(P)Ltd. 110.90 Sarveshwari Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd. 110.90 Satyam Marine Exports 110.90 Sea Rose Marines
(P)Ltd. 110.90 Sealand Fisheries Ltd. 110.90 Seaperl Industries 110.90 Sharat Industries Ltd. 110.90 Shimpo Exports 110.90 Shipper Exporter National Steel 110.90 Siddiq Seafoods 110.90 Skyfish 110.90 Sonia Fisheries 110.90 Sourab 110.90 Sreevas Export Enterprises 110.90 Sri Sidhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Star Fish Exports 110.90 Supreme Exports 110.90 The Canning Industries (Cochin) Ltd. 110.90 Tony Harris Seafoods Ltd. 110.90 Tri Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. 110.90 Trinity Exports 110.90 Tri-Tee Seafood Company 110.90 Ulka Seafoods
(P)Ltd. 110.90 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. 110.90 Upasana Exports 110.90 V Marine Exports 110.90 Varnita Cold Storage 110.90 Veraval Marines & Chemicals P Ltd. 110.90 Vijayalaxmi Seafoods 110.90 Winner Seafoods 110.90 Z A. Food Products 110.90 * *de minimus* . Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 5 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculation for those companies selected for individual review, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Devi and Falcon reported the entered value for some or all of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales which entered value was reported. For Falcon's U.S. sales reported without entered values, we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *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 POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero;
(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, or the 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 10.17 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,* 70 FR 5147, 5148 (Feb. 1, 2005). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 7, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. Offsetting of Negative Margins. 2. Whether the Department's Decision to Select Only Two Mandatory Respondents was Supported by Evidence on the Record. 3. Continuing to Apply AFA to Uncooperative Respondents for the Final Results. 4. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results. Company-Specific Issues 5. What Date to Assign to Unpaid U.S. Sales for Devi. 6. Devi's Raw Material Costs. 7. Devi's Compliance with Indian Licensing Requirements. 8. Whether to Include in Margin Calculations Previously Reviewed U.S. Sales for Falcon Which Entered during the Period of Review. 9. Falcon's Raw Material Costs. 10. Whether to Base the Final Margin for Uniroyal Marine Exports on AFA. [FR Doc. E8-16152 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-813] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Notice of Rescission of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Malaysia with respect to three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. The Department is now rescinding this administrative review in its entirety. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5287 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 6, 2008, the Department published a *Notice of Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review* , 73 FR 24941 (May 6, 2008) ( *Intent to Rescind* ), where it rescinded the review of the antidumping duty order on PRCBs from Malaysia with respect to King Pac and announced its intent to rescind the review with respect to Euro Plastics Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. and its affiliate Eplastics Procurement Center Sdn. Bhd. (Euro Plastics) and with respect to Zhin Hin Plastic Manufacturer Sdn. Bhd. (also known as Chin Hin Plastic Manufacture) (Zhin Hin). Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is PRCBs which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes
(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and
(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Rescission of the Administrative Review In *Intent to Rescind* , 73 FR at 24942, we gave interested parties an opportunity to comment by June 5, 2008. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, consistent with *Intent to Rescind* , we continue to find that Euro Plastics and Zhin Hin (the only remaining companies in this review) had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we are rescinding this administrative review in its entirety pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 08, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16153 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)at the National Institute of Standards and Technology AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Modifications with Request for Comment. SUMMARY: This notice provides for changes to the existing provisions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST)Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)published October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54606), and May 6, 2005 (70 FR 23996) primarily to improve flexibility in rewarding new and mid-level employees and to broaden the ability to make performance distinctions. DATES: This notice is effective on October 1, 2008. Comments will be accepted until close of business on August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Robert Kirkner, Chief Human Capital Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 101, Room A-531, 100 Bureau Drive Mail Stop 1700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1700, FAX:
(301)948-6107 or e-mail comments to *ppschanges@nist.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions or comments, please contact Robert Kirkner at the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
(301)975-3002; or Pamela Boyland at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-1068. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with Public Law 99-574, the NIST Authorization Act for 1987, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)approved a demonstration project plan, “Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),” and published the plan in the **Federal Register** on October 2, 1987 (52 FR 37082). The project plan has been modified twice to clarify certain NIST authorities (54 FR 21331 of May 17, 1989, and 55 FR 39220 of September 25, 1990). The project plan and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the final APMS plan, which became permanent on October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54604). NIST published an amendment on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 23996) which became permanent on June 6, 2005. The plan provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice formally modifies the APMS plan to refine the links between pay and performance. Comments will be considered and any changes deemed necessary will be made. Dated: July 7, 2008. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Basis for APMS Plan Modification III. Changes in the APMS Plan I. Executive Summary The National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST)Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)is designed to
(1)Improve hiring and allow NIST to compete more effectively for high-quality researchers through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruiting allowances;
(2)motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention allowances;
(3)strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and
(4)increase the efficiency of personnel systems through installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation. Since implementing the APMS, according to findings in the Office of Personnel Management's “Summative Evaluation Report National Institute of Standards and Technology Demonstration Project: 1988-1995,” NIST is more competitive for talent; NIST retained more top performers than a comparison group; and NIST managers reported significantly more authority to make decisions concerning employee pay. This modification builds on this success by refining the link between pay and performance. In 2005, NIST made the first significant changes to the APMS since its inception. NIST replaced its 100-point rating scale with six performance ratings and provided for automatic bonuses for high performing pay-capped employees. NIST also adjusted its provisions on retention service credit for reduction in force and annual adjustments to basic pay to correspond with the 2005 changes. This amendment modifies the May 2005 amendment. Specifically, NIST will introduce a seventh level to its six level performance ratings system, broadening flexibility to make performance distinctions. Pay increases will continue to be based upon an annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path and linked directly to the top four performance ratings. This amendment will allow the percentage of the mid-point salary to vary not only by career path but also by pay bands within a career path, which will expand NIST's ability to reward new, early-career and mid-level employees. This amendment will also modify the provisions on retention service credit for reduction in force to correspond with these changes. NIST will continually monitor the effectiveness of this amendment. II. Basis for APMS Plan Modification The need to modify the current Pay for Performance System (PPS), which was first implemented in fiscal year 2006, surfaced in the results of the 2007 NIST Employee Surveys, the NIST Research Advisory Committee 2007 Report to the NIST Director, the 2007 OPM Pay-for-Performance Report to NIST, and in discussions of the NIST Leadership Board. Generally, feedback indicated a need to clarify the system and address consequences of the May 2005 changes. One concern raised was that the system disproportionately rewarded employees in higher pay bands to the detriment of new and early-career employees. Another concern was that there was not enough flexibility to make meaningful performance distinctions. A work group of internal NIST stakeholders was tasked with evaluating the feedback and developing responsive modifications. The resulting adjustments are incorporated into this amendment. The NIST APMS proposed modifications include adding a seventh level to the current six level system, to permit an additional performance distinction. From highest to lowest, the seven performance ratings are: Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Meritorious Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory. Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and relative weights of the critical elements. Critical elements are rated using benchmark standards and supplemental standards/success measures. The ratings for the critical elements are: exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U). Performance pay increases will continue to be based on the annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path. When the percentage is applied to the mid-point salary in each pay band, the resulting dollar amount is the unit of salary increase or “I” for that pay band and career path. “I” percentages may differ by pay band and career path. The “I” percentage used for any given career path and band will apply system-wide, except that the Director may authorize a particular operating unit to use a lower “I” percentage for reasons related to solvency. Actual salary increases based on multiples of “I” are granted to employees in the top four performance levels as follows: Exceptional Contributor: “I” × 5; Superior Contributor: “I” × 3; Meritorious Contributor: “I” × 2; and Significant Contributor: “I.” A salary-capped employee with an Exceptional Contributor or Superior Contributor rating must receive a bonus at least equivalent to the salary increase that would have been received if the employee's salary were not capped. In addition to receiving a performance pay increase, employees with Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Meritorious Contributor, and Significant Contributor ratings receive the full annual basic pay adjustment (general and locality pay increases) and are eligible for a discretionary bonus. Employees with a Contributor rating do not receive a performance pay increase but do receive the full annual basic pay adjustment and are eligible for a discretionary bonus. Employees rated Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory do not receive a performance pay increase, discretionary bonus, or annual basic pay adjustment. The current provision on additional service credit for reduction-in-force purposes is revised to correspond with these changes. For retention purposes, this modification grants ten additional years of service for a rating of Exceptional Contributor, eight additional years of service for a rating of Superior Contributor, four additional years of service for a rating of Meritorious Contributor, three additional years of service for a rating of Significant Contributor, and one additional year of service for a rating of Contributor. III. Changes in the APMS Plan The APMS at the NIST, published in the **Federal Register** October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54604) and May 6, 2005 (70 FR 23996), is amended as follows: 1. Link Between Performance and Retention: The subsection titled “Link Between Performance and Retention” (70 FR 23998) is replaced with the following: Link Between Performance and Retention An employee with a performance rating of Exceptional Contributor is credited with ten additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Superior Contributor is credited with eight additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Meritorious Contributor is credited with four additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Significant Contributor is credited with three additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Contributor is credited with one additional year of service for retention purposes. The total credit is based on the employee's three most recent annual performance ratings of record received during the four-year period prior to an established cutoff date, for a potential total credit of thirty years. No reduction-in-force credit converts to this system from any other performance appraisal system. 2. Performance Ratings: The subsection titled “Performance Ratings” (70 FR 23998) is replaced with the following: Performance Ratings The NIST APMS performance ratings are Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Meritorious Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory. Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and weights of the critical elements in the performance plan. Performance in each critical element is evaluated using the benchmark standards and any supplemental standards or success measures, and the element is assigned a rating of exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U). The rating of the element is then matched with the weighted value of that critical element to produce a value for the element. For example, if an element is weighted 4 and the element is assigned a rating of exceeds expectations (E), then that element has a value of 4E. Once this matching is completed and the elements are totaled, performance ratings are assigned using the following table. Performance rating Critical element ratings Exceptional Contributor At least 8E; None below S. Superior Contributor At least 6E; None below S. Meritorious Contributor At least 4E; None below S. Significant Contributor At least 3E; Up to 2M. Contributor Up to 3M. Marginal Contributor 4 or more M. Unsatisfactory 1 or more U. An employee with unsatisfactory performance in one or more critical elements is considered unsatisfactory overall and is given a performance improvement plan and an opportunity to improve. If the employee's performance remains unsatisfactory at the end of an opportunity to improve, the supervisor initiates appropriate follow-up action, i.e., reassignment, proposed change to a lower pay band, or proposed removal. 3. Performance Pay Decisions: The subsection titled “Performance Pay Decisions” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Performance Pay Decisions Annually, the NIST Director determines the amount of a unit of increase, or “I,” based on a percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band of each career path. The percentage may vary by career path and by pay bands within a career path. Performance pay increases are linked directly to performance ratings. An employee with an overall performance rating of Exceptional Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to five units of increase, or 5 × “I.” A Superior Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to 3 × “I.” A Meritorious Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to 2 × “I.” A Significant Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to “I.” The actual dollar amount of a performance pay increase depends upon an employee's career path and pay band. Employees may not receive an increase that causes their salary to exceed the maximum rate for their pay band. Employees with Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory ratings do not receive performance pay increases. [FR Doc. E8-16066 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Request for Nominations for Members To Serve on National Institute of Standards and Technology Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to its eight existing Federal Advisory Committees: Technology Innovation Program Advisory Committee, Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, and Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committees, in addition to nominations already received. DATES: Nominations for all committees will be accepted on an ongoing basis and will be considered as and when vacancies arise. ADDRESSES: See below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Innovation Program
(TIP)Advisory Board *Addresses:* Please submit nominations to Mr. Marc Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-869-1150. Additional information regarding the committee, including its charter may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.nist.gov/tip.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Stanley, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4700; telephone 301-975-2162, fax 301-869-1150; or via e-mail at *marc.stanley@nist.gov.* *Committee Information:* The Board will consist of ten members appointed by the Director of NIST, at least seven of whom shall be from United States industry, chosen to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines and industrial sectors represented in TIP projects. No member will be an employee of the Federal Government. The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Authority: 15 U.S.C 278n(k), as amended by the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), Federal Advisory Committee Act: 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.baldrige.nist.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program and Designated Federal Officer, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; FAX 301-948-4967; or via e-mail at *harry.hertz@nist.gov.* *Committee Information:* The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary. 2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process. 3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST. Membership 1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, education, health care industries, and the nonprofit sector. 2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end of February 28 of the appropriate year. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. 2. The Board will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one day in duration. 3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from the private and public sector as described above. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, health care, and nonprofits. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership. Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-975-4967. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.baldrige.nist.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hertz, Director, Baldrige National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; FAX 301-975-4967; or via e-mail at *harry.hertz@nist.gov.* *Committee Information:* The Judges Panel was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Judges Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process by reviewing the results of examiners' scoring of written applications, and then voting on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of claims made by applicants. 2. The Judges Panel will ensure that individuals on site visit teams for the Award finalists have no conflict of interest with respect to the finalists. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits and recommend Award recipients. 3. The Judges Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST. Membership 1. The Judges Panel is composed of at least nine, and not more than twelve, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, health care, and nonprofits and will include members familiar with performance improvement in their area of business. 2. The Judges Panel will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Panel member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Judges Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq. 2. The Judges Panel will meet three times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are usually one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course. 3. Committee meetings are closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code. Since the members of the Judges Panel examine records and discuss Award applicant data, the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that may be privileged or confidential. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, health care, and nonprofits as described above. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the performance improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, health care, and nonprofit organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the Judges Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Judges Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Committee duties. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Judges Panel membership. Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Pauline Bowen, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-4007, Attn: ISPAB Nominations. Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter and current membership list, may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://csrc.nist.gov/ispab/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline Bowen, ISPAB Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930; telephone 301-975-2938; fax 301-975-8670; or via e-mail at *pauline.bowen@nist.gov.* *Committee Information:* The ISPAB was originally chartered as the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB) by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235). As a result of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), Title III, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, Section 21 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4) the Board's charter was amended. This amendment included the name change of the Board. Objectives and Duties The objectives and duties of the ISPAB are: 1. To identify emerging managerial, technical, administrative, and physical safeguard issues relative to information security and privacy. 2. To advise the NIST, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal Government information systems, including thorough review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. 3. To annually report its findings to the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Security Agency, and the appropriate committees of the Congress. 4. To function solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Membership The ISPAB is comprised of twelve members, in addition to the Chairperson. The membership of the Board includes: 1. Four members from outside the Federal Government eminent in the information technology industry, at least one of whom is representative of small or medium sized companies in such industries. 2. Four members from outside the Federal Government who are eminent in the field of information technology, or related disciplines, but who are not employed by or representative of a producer of information technology equipment; and 3. Four members from the Federal Government who have information system management experience, including experience in information security and privacy; at least one of these members shall be from the National Security Agency. Miscellaneous Members of the ISPAB who are not full-time employees of the Federal government are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while otherwise performing duties at the request of the Board Chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business. Meetings of the Board are usually two to three days in duration and are usually held quarterly. The meetings primarily take place in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area but may be held at such locations and at such time and place as determined by the majority of the Board. Board meetings are open to the public and members of the press usually attend. Members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties. Nomination Information Nominations are being accepted in all three categories described above. Nominees should have specific experience related to information security or electronic privacy issues, particularly as they pertain to Federal information technology. Letters of nomination should include the category of membership for which the candidate is applying and a summary of the candidate's qualifications for that specific category. Also include (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and any Federal employment. Each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the ISPAB, and that they will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the ISPAB. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote a minimum of two days between meetings to developing draft issue papers, researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their Board duties. Selection of ISPAB members will not be limited to individuals who are nominated. Nominations that are received and meet the requirements will be kept on file to be reviewed as Board vacancies occur. Nominees must be U.S. citizens. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse ISPAB membership. Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP)Advisory Board ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Ms. Karen Lellock, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-963-6556. Additional information regarding the Board, including its charter may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.mep.nist.gov/about-mep/mep-advisory-board.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Lellock, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800; telephone 301-975-4269, fax 301-963-6556; or via e-mail at *karen.lellock@nist.gov.* *Committee Information:* The Board will advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)on MEP programs, plans, and policies, assess the soundness of MEP plans and strategies, and assess current performance against MEP program plans. The Board will consist of ten individuals appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)and broadly representing stakeholders. The Board will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k(e) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 5 U.S.C. App. 2. National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Stephen Cauffman, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-869-6275. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Cauffman, National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611, telephone 301-975-6051, fax 301-869-6275; or via e-mail at *stephen.cauffman@nist.gov* . *Committee Information:* The Committee was established in accordance with the National Construction Safety Team Act, Public Law 107-231 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Committee shall advise the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)on carrying out the National Construction Safety Team Act (Act), review and provide advice on the procedures developed under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and review and provide advice on the reports issued under section 8 of the Act. 2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST. 4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory
(BFRL)and the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress, to be due at a date to be agreed upon by the Committee and the Director of NIST. Such report will provide an evaluation of National Construction Safety Team activities, along with recommendations to improve the operation and effectiveness of National Construction Safety Teams, and an assessment of the implementation of the recommendations of the National Construction Safety Teams and of the Committee. In addition, the Committee may provide reports at strategic stages of an investigation, at its discretion or at the request of the Director of NIST, through the Director of the BFRL and the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce. Membership 1. The Committee will be composed of not fewer than five nor more than ten members that reflect a wide balance of the diversity of technical disciplines and competencies involved in the National Construction Safety Teams investigations. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams. 2. The Director of the NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Committee will not be paid for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq., while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business. 2. The Committee will meet at least once per year at the call of the Chair. Additional meetings may be called whenever one-third or more of the members so request it in writing or whenever the Chair or the Director of NIST requests a meeting. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from all fields involved in issues affecting National Construction Safety Teams. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents he/she is qualified for should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the candidate agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership. Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR) ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Tina Faecke, Administrative Officer, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8630, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8630. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-975-5433 or e-mail at *tina.faecke@nist.gov* . Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.nehrp.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jack Hayes, Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8610, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610, telephone 301-975-5640, fax 301-975-4032; or via e-mail at *jack.hayes@nist.gov* . *Committee Information:* The Committee was established on June 27, 2006, in accordance with the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. 108-360 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Committee will assess trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction, effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the activities under section 103(a)(2) of the Act, the need to revise the Program, the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program. 2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST. 4. Not later than one year after the first meeting of the Committee, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Committee shall report to the Director of NIST, on its findings of the assessments and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. Membership 1. The Committee will consist of not fewer than 11 nor more than 15 members, who reflect a wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. Members shall be selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 2. The Director of NIST shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. 3. The term of office of each member of the Committee shall be three years, except that vacancy appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy and that the initial members shall have staggered terms such that the committee will have approximately 1/3 new or reappointed members each year. 4. No committee member may be an “employee” as defined in subparagraphs
(A)through
(F)of section 7342(a)(1) of Title 5 of the United States Code. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but will, upon request, be allowed travel and per diem expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 *et seq.* , while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business. 2. Members of the Committee shall serve as Special Government Employees and are required to file an annual Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. 3. The Committee shall meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be called whenever the Director of NIST requests a meeting. 4. Committee meetings are open to the public. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from industry and other communities having an interest in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, such as, but not limited to, research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, state and local government bodies, and financial communities, who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service. The field of expertise that the candidate represents should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular field should come from organizations or individuals within that field. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Committee, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Committee. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Committee membership. Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology
(VCAT)ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Gail Ehrlich, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060. Nominations may also be submitted via fax to 301-216-0529. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on the NIST Web site at: *http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/vcat.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Ehrlich, Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060, telephone 301-975-2149, fax 301-216-0529; or via e-mail at *gail.ehrlich@nist.gov* . *Committee Information:* The VCAT was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. 2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 3. The Committee shall report to the Director of NIST. 4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress no later than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the President's annual budget request in each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect the Institute, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy advisor of the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of program emphasis for the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of the United States industry, which could be used to assist the United States enterprises and United States industrial joint research and development ventures. Such report also shall comment on the programmatic planning document and updates thereto submitted to Congress under subsections
(c)and
(d)of section 23 of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C. 278i). The Committee shall submit to the Secretary and Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate. Membership 1. The Committee is composed of fifteen members that provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries. Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee. 2. The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall appoint the members of the Committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the VCAT are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 *et seq* ., while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business. 2. Meetings of the VCAT take place at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and once each year at the NIST site in Boulder, Colorado. Meetings are one or two days in duration and are held at least twice each year. 3. Committee meetings are open to the public. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment and international relations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the candidate agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT. Besides participation in one- or two-day meetings held at least twice each year, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of two days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of the Committee duties. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse VCAT membership. Dated: July 8, 2008. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-16064 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 080626784-8786-01] RIN 0693-ZA82 Technology Innovation Program
(TIP)Notice of Availability of Funds and Announcement of Public Meetings (Proposers' Conferences) AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST)Technology Innovation Program
(TIP)announces that it will hold a single fiscal year 2008 competition and is soliciting high-risk, high-reward research and development proposals for financial assistance. TIP also announces that it will hold public meetings (Proposers' Conferences) for all interested parties. TIP is soliciting proposals under this fiscal year 2008 competition in one area of critical national need entitled “Civil Infrastructure” as described in the Program Description section below. DATES: The due date for submission of proposals is 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Thursday, September 4, 2008. This deadline applies to any mode of proposal submission, including hand-delivery, courier, express mailing, and electronic. Do not wait until the last minute to submit a proposal. TIP will not make any allowances for late submissions, including incomplete Grants.gov registration or delays by guaranteed overnight couriers. To avoid any potential processing backlogs due to last minute registrations, proposers are strongly encouraged to start their Grants.gov registration process at least four weeks prior to the proposal submission due date. Review, selection, and award processing is expected to be completed by the end of November 2008. ADDRESSES: Proposals must be submitted to TIP as follows: *Paper submission:* Send to National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Innovation Program, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4701, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4701. *Electronic submission: http://www.grants.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Lambis at 301-975-4447 or by e-mail at *barbara.lambis@nist.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Additional Information* . The full Federal Funding Opportunity
(FFO)announcement for this request for proposals is available at *http://www.grants.gov* . The full FFO announcement text can also be accessed on the TIP Web site at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* . The June 2008 Technology Innovation Program Proposal Preparation Kit is also available at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* . The TIP Proposal Preparation Kit must be used to prepare a TIP proposal. The TIP implementing regulations are published at 15 CFR Part 296, 73 FR 35,913 (June 25, 2008), and included in the TIP Proposal Preparation Kit as Appendix B. *Public Meetings (Proposers' Conferences)* . TIP is holding public meetings (Proposers' Conferences) at several locations around the country. Proposers' conferences will provide general information regarding TIP, guidance on preparing proposals, and the opportunity for questions and answers. Proprietary technical discussions about specific project ideas with NIST staff are not permitted at these conferences or at any time before submitting the proposal to TIP. Therefore, you should not expect to have proprietary issues addressed at proposers' conferences. Also, NIST/TIP staff will not critique or provide feedback on project ideas while they are being developed by a proposer. However, NIST/TIP staff will answer questions about the TIP eligibility and cost-sharing requirements, evaluation and award criteria, selection process, and the general characteristics of a competitive TIP proposal at the proposers' conferences and by phone and e-mail. Attendance at TIP proposers' conferences is not required. TIP Proposers' Conferences are being held at the following dates, times, and locations: *July 16, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Central Time:* St. Louis Airport Marriott, 10700 Pear Tree Lane, St. Louis, MO (314-253-5121). *July 16, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Central Time:* Renaissance Houston, 6 Greenway Plaza, East Houston, TX (713-850-2310). *July 17, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time:* Holiday Inn Atlanta Airport North, 1380 Virginia Avenue, Atlanta, GA (404-838-0029). *July 17, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Pacific Time:* Holiday Inn Portland Airport, 8439 North East Columbia Boulevard, Portland, OR (503-914-5253). *July 18, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Pacific Time:* Doubletree San Jose, 2050 Gateway Place, San Jose, CA (408-437-2124). *July 21, 2008, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Eastern Time:* Boston Courtyard Downtown, 275 Tremont Street, Boston, MA (781-537-5594). *July 22, 2008, 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time:* NIST Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD (301-975-8910). Pre-registration is required by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 16, 2008 for the Proposers' Conference being held at NIST Gaithersburg, MD only. Due to increased security at NIST, no on-site registrations will be accepted and all attendees must be pre-registered. Photo identification must be presented at the NIST main gate to be admitted to the July 17, 2008 conference. Attendees must wear their conference badge at all times while on the NIST campus. Same day registration will be allowed at the other locations. Electronic Registration: At *http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/080722.htm* . No registration fee will be charged for any of the Proposers' Conferences. Presentation materials from Proposers' Conferences will be made available on the TIP Web site. *Statutory Authority* . Section 3012 of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act, Pub. L. 110-69 (August 9, 2007), 15 U.S.C.A. 278n (2008). *CFDA.* 11.613, Technology Innovation Program *Program Description.* TIP is soliciting proposals under this fiscal year 2008 competition in one area of critical nation need entitled “Civil Infrastructure” as described below. The objective of this area of critical national need is to address two elements of a Civil Infrastructure Structural Integrity societal challenge. The two elements are inspection and monitoring of the United States' Civil Infrastructure Structural Integrity as outlined in the white paper “Advanced Sensing Technologies for the Infrastructure: Roads, Highways, Bridges and Water Systems” ( *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* ). The solutions to this societal challenge require advancement beyond the state-of-the-art of sensing technologies that will assess the structural integrity and/or deterioration processes of bridges, roads, water mains, and wastewater collection systems, that are more accurate, easier to use, and more economically feasible. The need for advanced sensing technologies is of national importance because nearly all municipalities and states in the nation face infrastructure management challenges. The need for TIP's investment is justified because portions of infrastructure are reaching the end of their life spans and there are few cost effective technical means to monitor infrastructure integrity and to prioritize the renovation and replacement of infrastructure elements. Transformational research beyond incremental advancements is required to achieve the objectives for this area of critical national need. Incremental improvements of current technologies will not meet the challenges of providing cost-effective, widely deployable solutions to the problems of sensing structural integrities and/or deterioration processes widely across infrastructure systems. Proposals are being sought to create and validate new advanced, robust, network capable, nondestructive evaluation and test sensing systems, or system components, to cost effectively and quantitatively inspect and evaluate the structural integrity of the civil infrastructure. The targeted system should be capable of, but not limited to, detection of corrosion, cracking, and delamination or failure of critical infrastructure elements and the materials of which they are made. Solutions are needed for improved inspection systems for roads, highways, bridges, drinking and wastewater systems that provide real-time understanding of the integrity and service life through the use of portable, mobile or remote sensing capabilities. Innovations are being sought in all aspects of a system to provide an advanced, cost effective, networked system, either fixed or mobile, that is easily deployable, self powered, and self monitoring. A complete system could include all system components, hardware, and software. Proposals that include validation by potential end users will be considered as having strong potential. Also within scope are: a. Systems that provide new and advanced methodologies for the detection of fluid leaks from water piping systems; and b. Single components of a system solution that include a demonstration of the component in a system setting. Ineligible projects under this competition are: a. Advancements in a system component without a prototype demonstrating that the component is functional within a system solution, as part of the proposed technical plan; b. Integration projects using only existing state-of-the-art components; c. Straightforward improvements to existing components without the potential for a transformational increase in performance to the technical requirements; and d. Software development that is predominantly straightforward, routine data gathering using applications of standard software development practices. In addition to the competition-specific ineligible projects, the following are ineligible projects: a. Straightforward improvements of existing products or product development. b. Projects that are Phase II, III, or IV clinical trials. TIP will rarely fund Phase I clinical trials and reserves the right not to fund a Phase I clinical trial. The portion of a Phase I trial that may be funded must be critical to meeting Evaluation Criterion (a)(1) addressing the scientific and technical merit of the proposal. The trial results must be essential for completion of a critical R&D task of the project. The definitions of all phases of clinical trials are provided in the *TIP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects* located at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html.* c. Pre-commercial-scale demonstration projects where the emphasis is on demonstrating that some technology works on a large scale or is economically sound rather than on R&D that advances the state of the art and is high-risk, high-reward. d. Projects that TIP determines would likely be completed without TIP funds in the same time frame or nearly the same time frame, or with the same scale or scope. e. Predominantly straightforward, routine data gathering (e.g., creation of voluntary consensus standards, data gathering/handbook preparation, testing of materials, or unbounded research aimed at basic discovery science) or application of standard engineering practices. f. Projects in which the predominant risk is market oriented—that is, the risk that the end product may not be embraced by the marketplace. g. Projects with software work, that are predominantly about final product details and product development, and that have significant testing involving users outside the research team to determine if the software meets the original research objectives, are likely to be either uncompetitive or possibly ineligible for funding. However, R&D projects with limited software testing, involving users outside of the research team, may be eligible for funding and contain eligible costs within a TIP award when the testing is critical to meeting Evaluation Criteria and/or Award Criteria and the testing results are essential for completion of a critical task in the proposed research. This type of testing in projects may also be considered to involve human subjects in research. *Funding Availability.* Fiscal year 2008 appropriations include funds in the amount of approximately $9 million for new TIP awards. Approximately 9 awards are anticipated. The anticipated start date is January 1, 2009. The period of performance depends on the R&D activity proposed. A single company can receive up to a total of $3 million with a project period of performance of up to 3 years. A joint venture can receive up to a total of $9 million with a project period of performance of up to 5 years. Continuation funding is based on satisfactory performance, availability of funds, continued relevance to program objectives, and is at the sole discretion of NIST. *Eligibility Criteria.* Single companies and joint ventures may apply for TIP funding as provided in 15 CFR 296.2, 296.4, and 296.5. *Cost Sharing Requirements.* At least 50 percent of the yearly total project costs (direct plus all of the indirect costs). *Evaluation and Award Criteria.* Proposals are selected for funding based on the evaluation criteria listed in 15 CFR 296.21 and the award criteria listed in 15 CFR 296.22 as identified below. Additionally, no proposal will be funded unless TIP determines that it has scientific and technical merit and that the proposed research has strong potential for addressing a societal challenge within the TIP-identified area of critical national need as described in this notice. Detailed guidance on how to address the evaluation and award criteria is provided in Chapter 2 of the TIP Proposal Preparation Kit, which is available at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html.* *Evaluation Criteria.* The two components of the evaluation criteria and respective weights as listed in 15 CFR 296.21 are as follows: (a)(1) The proposer(s) adequately addresses the scientific and technical merit and how the research may result in intellectual property vesting in a United States entity including evidence that:
(i)The proposed research is novel;
(ii)The proposed research is high-risk, high-reward;
(iii)The proposer(s) demonstrates a high level of relevant scientific/technical expertise for key personnel, including contractors and/or informal collaborators, and has access to the necessary resources, for example research facilities, equipment, materials, and data, to conduct the research as proposed;
(iv)The research result(s) has the potential to address the technical needs associated with a major societal challenge not currently being addressed; and
(v)The proposed research plan is scientifically sound with tasks, milestones, timeline, decision points and alternate strategies.
(2)Total weight of (a)(1)(i) through
(v)is 50%. (b)(1) The proposer(s) adequately establishes that the proposed research has strong potential for advancing the state-of-the-art and contributing significantly to the United States science and technology knowledge base and to address areas of critical national need through transforming the Nation's capacity to deal with a major societal challenge(s) that is not currently being addressed, and generate substantial benefits to the Nation that extend significantly beyond the direct return to the proposer including an explanation in the proposal:
(i)Of the potential magnitude of transformational results upon the Nation's capabilities in an area;
(ii)Of how and when the ensuing transformational results will be useful to the Nation; and
(iii)Of the capacity and commitment of each award participant to enable or advance the transformation to the proposed research results (technology).
(2)Total weight of (b)(1)(i) through
(iii)is 50%. *Award Criteria.* The six components of the award criteria as listed in 15 CFR § 296.22 are as follows:
(a)The proposal explains why TIP support is necessary, including evidence that the research will not be conducted within a reasonable time period in the absence of financial assistance from TIP;
(b)The proposal demonstrates that reasonable and thorough efforts have been made to secure funding from alternative funding sources and no other alternative funding sources are reasonably available to support the proposal;
(c)The proposal explains the novelty of the research (technology) and demonstrates that other entities have not already developed, commercialized, marketed, distributed, or sold similar research results (technologies);
(d)The proposal has scientific and technical merit and may result in intellectual property vesting in a United States entity that can commercialize the technology in a timely manner; and
(e)The proposal establishes that the research has strong potential for advancing the state-of-the-art and contributing significantly to the United States science and technology knowledge base; and
(f)The proposal establishes that the proposed transformational research (technology) has strong potential to address areas of critical national need through transforming the Nation's capacity to deal with major societal challenges that are not currently being addressed, and generate substantial benefits to the Nation that extend significantly beyond the direct return to the proposer. NIST must determine that a proposal successfully meets all six award criteria for the proposal to receive funding under the Program. *Selection Factors.* In making final selections, the Selecting Official will select funding recipients based upon the Evaluation Panel's rank order of the proposals and the following selection factors: a. Assuring an appropriate distribution of funds among technologies and their applications, b. Availability of funds, and/or c. Program priorities. *Program Priorities.* TIP is soliciting proposals under this fiscal year 2008 competition in one area of critical nation need entitled “Civil Infrastructure” as described in the Program Description section above. *Selection Procedures.* Proposals are selected based on a multi-disciplinary peer-review process, as described in 15 CFR 296.20. A preliminary review is conducted to determine if the proposal is in accordance with 15 CFR 296.3, complies with the eligibility requirements described in 15 CFR 296.5, addresses award criteria
(a)through
(c)of 15 CFR 296.22, and is complete. Proposals that are incomplete or do not meet any one of the preliminary review requirements will normally be eliminated. All remaining proposals are then carefully reviewed based on the TIP evaluation criteria listed in 15 CFR 296.21 and award criteria listed in 15 CFR 296.22. An Evaluation Panel will present funding recommendations to a Selecting Official in rank order for further consideration. The Selecting Official makes the final selections for funding. The selection of proposals by the Selecting Official is final and cannot be appealed. The final approval of selected proposals and award of assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decision of the NIST Grants Officer is final and cannot be appealed. NIST reserves the right to negotiate the cost and scope of the proposed work with the proposers that have been selected to receive awards. This may include requesting that the proposer delete from the scope of work a particular task that is deemed by NIST to be inappropriate for support. NIST also reserves the right to reject a proposal where information exists that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the proposer. *Unallowable/Ineligible Costs.* The following items, regardless of whether they are allowable under the federal cost principles, are ineligible/unallowable under TIP: a. Bid and proposal costs unless they are incorporated into a federally approved indirect cost rate (e.g., payments to any organization or person retained to help prepare a proposal). b. Construction costs for new buildings or extensive renovations of existing laboratory buildings. However, costs for the construction of experimental research and development facilities to be located within a new or existing building are allowable provided the equipment or facilities are essential for carrying out the proposed project and are approved by the NIST Grants Officer. These types of facility costs may need to be prorated if they will not be used exclusively for the research activities proposed. c. Contractor office supplies and contractor expenses for conferences/workshops. d. Contracts to another part of the same company or to another company with identical or nearly identical ownership. Work proposed by another part of the same company or by another company with identical or nearly identical ownership should be shown as funded through inter-organizational transfers that do not contain profit. Inter-organizational transfers should be broken down in the appropriate budget categories. e. For research involving human and/or animal subjects, any costs used to secure Institutional Review Board or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approvals before or during the award. f. General purpose office equipment and supplies that are not used exclusively for the research, e.g., office computers, printers, copiers, paper, pens, and toner cartridges. g. Indirect costs, which must be absorbed by the recipient. However, indirect costs are allowable for contractors under a single company or joint venture. (Note that indirect costs absorbed by the recipient may be used to meet the cost-sharing requirement.) h. Marketing, sales, or commercialization costs, including marketing surveys, commercialization studies, and general business planning, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. i. Office furniture costs, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. j. Patent costs and legal fees, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. k. Preaward costs. l. Profit, management fees, interest on borrowed funds, or facilities capital cost of money. However, profit is allowable for contractors under a single company or joint venture. m. Relocation costs, unless they are included in a federally approved indirect cost rate. n. Tuition costs. However, an institution of higher education participating in a TIP project as a contractor or as a joint venture member or lead may charge TIP for tuition remission or other forms of compensation in lieu of wages paid to students working on TIP projects, but only as provided in OMB Circular A-21, Section J.41. In such cases, tuition remission would be considered a cash contribution rather than an in-kind contribution. *Intellectual Property Requirements* . For single company award recipients, pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. 202
(a)and (b)) and “Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Government Patent Policy” (February 18, 1983), the entity that invents owns the invention. However, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 202(a)(i), when a single company or its contractor under a TIP award is not located in the United States or does not have a place of business located in the United States or is subject to the control of a foreign government, NIST will require that title to inventions made by such parties be transferred to a United States entity that will ensure the commercialization of the technology in a timely fashion. For joint ventures, ownership of inventions arising from a TIP-funded project may vest in any participant in a joint venture, as agreed by the members of the joint venture (notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. 202
(a)and (b)). ( *Participant includes any entity that is identified as a recipient, subrecipient, or contractor on an award to a joint venture.* ) Title to any such invention shall not be transferred or passed, except to a participant in the joint venture, until the expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with such invention. Should the last existing participant in a joint venture cease to exist prior to the expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with any invention developed from assistance provided under TIP, title to such patent must be transferred or passed to a U.S. entity that can commercialize the technology in a timely fashion. The United States reserves a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable paid-up license, to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the United States any inventions developed from a TIP award. The federal government shall not in the exercise of such license publicly disclose proprietary information related to the license. This does not prohibit the licensing to any company of intellectual property rights arising from a TIP-funded project. (15 CFR 296.11(b)(3)). The federal government also has march-in rights in accordance with 37 CFR 401.6. *Projects Involving Human Subjects* . Research involving human subjects must be in compliance with applicable Federal regulations and NIST policies for the protection of human subjects. Human subjects research activities involve interactions with live human subjects or the use of data, images, tissue, and/or cells/cell lines (including those used for control purposes) from human subjects. Research involving human subjects may include activities such as the use of image and/or audio recording of people, taking surveys or using survey data, using databases containing personal information, testing software with volunteers, and many tasks beyond those within traditional biomedical research. A Human Subjects Determination Checklist is included in the June 2008 TIP Proposal Preparation Kit in Chapter 4 ( *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* ) to assist you in determining whether your proposed research plan has human subjects involvement, which would require additional information in your proposal submission, and possibly more documentation during the Evaluation Panel's consideration of your proposal. See the *TIP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects* for more specific information on documentation requirements and due dates for documentation located at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* or by calling 1-888-847-6478. *Projects Involving Live Vertebrate Animals* . Research involving live vertebrate animals must be in compliance with applicable federal regulations and NIST policies for the protection of live vertebrate animals. Vertebrate animal research involves live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals or for teaching or testing. The regulations do not apply to animal tissues purchased from commercial processors or tissue banks or to uses of preexisting images of animals (e.g., a wildlife documentary or pictures of animals in newscasts). The regulations do apply to any animals that are transported, cared for, euthanized or used by a project participant for testing, research, or training such as testing of new procedures or projects, collection of biological samples or observation data on health and behavior. Detailed information regarding the use of live vertebrate animals in research plans and required documentation is available in the * TIP Guidelines and Documentation Requirements for Research Involving Human & Animal Subjects * located at *http://www.nist.gov/tip/helpful.html* or by calling 1-888-847-6478. *Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs* ). Proposals under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372. *Administrative Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act* . Prior notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. *E.O. 13132 (Federalism)* . This notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. *E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)* . This notice is not a significant regulatory action under Sections 3(f)(3) and 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, as it does not materially alter the budgetary impact of a grant program and does not raise novel policy issues. This notice is not an “economically significant” regulatory action under Section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order, as it does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, and it does not have a material adverse effect on the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. *Paperwork Reduction Act* . Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to, comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Control Number. This notice contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. The use of Form NIST-1022, Standard Form-424 (R&R), SF-424B, SF-LLL, Research and Related Other Project Information Form, and CD-346 has been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0693-0050, 4040-0001, 4040-0007, 0348-0046, 4040-0001, and 0605-0001. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements* . Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 73 FR 7696-05 (Feb. 11, 2008), apply to this solicitation. Dated: July 9, 2008. James M. Turner, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-16068 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XJ03 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held August 11 - 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Hilton Key Largo, 97000 S. Overseas Hwy., Key Largo, FL 33037. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:30 p.m. - The Council meeting will begin with a review of the agenda and minutes. The Council will review and discuss reports from the previous two days' committee meetings as follows: *3:45 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - Ad Hoc Allocation. *6 p.m. - 7 p.m.* - There will be an Open Public Question and Answer Session. Thursday, August 14, 2008 *8:30 a.m. - 12 noon* - The Council will receive public testimony on exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any; Final Reef Fish Amendment 30B; Final Amendment 8 to the Joint Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Following testimony, the Council will hold an Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue of concern. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. *1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Council will continue to review and discuss reports from the committee meetings as follows: Reef Fish Management; Joint Stone Crab/Spiny Lobster; Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum; Marine Reserves; and Administrative Policy. Friday, August 15, 2008 The Council will continue to review and discuss reports from the committee meetings as follows: *8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - The Shrimp Management; Data Collection; Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem. *9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.* - Other Business items and the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The Council will conclude its meeting at approximately 10:30 a.m. Committees Monday, August 11, 2008 *9 a.m. - 12 p.m. & 1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to discuss Final Reef Fish Amendment 30B; Reef Fish Amendment 29; Southeast Data and Review (SEDAR) Terms of Reference
(TOR)for Black Grouper; SEDAR TOR for stock Assessment Updates for Red Snapper, Gag, and Red Grouper; and Ad Hoc Recreational Red Snapper Advisory Panel
(AP)Recommendations. The Council will also receive a document on changes in effort and fuel prices in the Gulf. Tuesday, August 12, 2008 *8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - The Reef Fish Management Committee will continue. *9:30 a.m. - 12 p.m.* - The Administrative Policy Committee will meet to discuss Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)Comments on annual catch limit
(ACL)and accountability measure
(AM)Guidelines and Revised Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPP's). *1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - The Ad Hoc Allocation Committee will meet to discuss Fishing Communities and Social Aspects of Allocation; FMP Objectives; Net Benefits and Allocation; Landings, Total Allowable Catch
(TAC)and Allocation Changes by Sector; Draft Allocation Principles and any Recommendations to the Council. *3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.* - The Stone Crab/Spiny Lobster Committee will meet to discuss the Final Amendment 8 to the Spiny Lobster FMP; Public Hearing Comments; Spiny Lobster AP Recommendations and Committee Recommendations. *4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Sustainable Fisheries/Ecosystem Committee will meet to discuss the Ecosystem SSC Recommendations. Wednesday, August 13, 2008 *8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.* - CLOSED SESSION. The Joint AP Selection Committee/Outreach & Education Committee will meet in a Closed Session to discuss Selection of Outreach & Education AP members. *9 a.m. - 11 a.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Management Committee will meet to discuss the Aquaculture FMP. *11 a.m. - 12 p.m.* - The Shrimp Management Committee will meet to discuss NMFS Status and Health of the Shrimp Stocks; A Stock Assessment Report for Gulf Of Mexico Shrimp 2007; and A Biological Review of the Tortugas Pink Shrimp Fishery Through December 2007. *1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - The Data Collection Committee will meet to discuss Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Recreational Red Snapper AP and Comments on Proposed Rule for National Saltwater Angler Registry. They will also receive a status report on the MRIP. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina O'Hern at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: July 10, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16108 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XJ04 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The Halibut Managers Workgroup
(HMW)will hold a work session to discuss implications of the International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC)proposed catch apportionment methodology and to develop consensus on issues affecting Area 2A halibut fisheries prior to the IPHC workshop on catch apportionment. The HMW is not a committee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), however, the Council has expressed interest in having a report from the HMW, and has offered to provide meeting space. The meeting is open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, August 7, 2008, from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Tracy, Salmon and Halibut Management Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council, telephone:
(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to allow an exchange of information and ideas among managers and industry representatives from Area 2A, primarily as they relate to the upcoming IPHC workshop on catch apportionment. The objective of the meeting will be to develop a consensus on a catch apportionment strategy that will be both fair and biologically sound, which can be presented at the IPHC workshop scheduled for September 4, 2008. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may come before the HMW for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at
(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: July 10, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16109 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XI81 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Ocean Bottom Cable Seismic Survey in the Liberty Prospect, Beaufort Sea, Alaska in 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.
(BPXA)to take, by harassment, small numbers of six species of marine mammals incidental to a 3D, ocean bottom cable
(OBC)seismic survey in the Liberty Prospect, Beaufort Sea, Alaska during July and August, 2008. DATES: Effective July 8, 2008, through August 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: The application containing a list of the references used in this document, an addendum to the application, and the IHA are available by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225 or by telephoning the contact listed below ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ), or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. A copy of the 2006 Minerals Management Service's
(MMS)Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(PEA)and/or the NMFS/MMS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) are available on the internet at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . A copy of NMFS' 2008 Supplemental Environmental Assessment
(SEA)is available at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
(301)713-2289 or Brad Smith, NMFS Alaska Region,
(907)271-3023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i)has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or
(ii)has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Summary of Request On November 21, 2007, NMFS received an application from BPXA for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a 3D, OBC seismic survey in the Liberty Prospect area of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in 2008. BPXA submitted an addendum to their application on April 21, 2008, which updated the vessel inventory, refined the dates of the survey, and withdrew the request for take of one narwhal. The survey would occur over a period of 40-60 days in July and August, 2008, with operations ceasing on August 25 prior to the start of the Nuiqsut whaling season. Seismic data acquisition is planned to start in early July, depending on the presence of ice. Open water seismic operations can only start when the project area is ice free (i.e., less than 10 percent ice coverage), which in this area normally occurs around July 20 (+/- 14 days). Limited layout of receiver cables might be possible on the mudflats in the Sagavanirktok River delta areas before the ice has cleared. The Liberty field contains one of the largest undeveloped light-oil reservoirs near the North Slope infrastructure, and the development of this field could recover an estimated 105 million barrels of oil. The field is located in Federal waters of the Beaufort Sea about 8.9 km (5.5 mi) offshore in 6.1 m (20 ft) of water and approximately 8 to 13 km (5 to 8 mi) east of the existing Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI; see Figure 1 of BPXA's application). The project area encompasses 351.8 km 2 (135.8 mi 2 ) in Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea, of which one percent is on mudflats, 18.5 percent is in water depths of 0.3-1.5 m (1-5 ft), 12.5 percent is in water depths of 1.5-3 m (5-10 ft), 43 percent is in water depths of 3-6.1 m (10-20 ft), and 25 percent is in water depths of 6.1-9.1 m (20-30 ft; see Figure 2 of BPXA's application). The approximate boundaries of the total surface area are between 70° 11' N. and 70° 23' N. and between 147° 10' W. and 148° 02' W. Additional background information regarding BPXA's request was included in NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA, which published in the **Federal Register** on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24236). Description of Activity OBC seismic surveys are used to acquire seismic data in water that is too shallow for large marine-streamer vessels and/or too deep to have grounded ice in the winter. This type of seismic survey requires the use of multiple vessels for cable deployment/recovery, recording, shooting, and utility boats. The planned 3D, OBC seismic survey in the Liberty area will be conducted by CGGVeritas, a BPXA contractor. A detailed overview of the activities of this survey were provided in the Notice of Proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008). No changes have been made to these proposed activities. Additional information is contained in BPXA's application and application addendum, which are available for review (see ADDRESSES ). Comments and Responses A notice of receipt of BPXA's MMPA application and NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to BPXA was published in the **Federal Register** on May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24236). That notice described, in detail, BPXA's proposed activity, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. During the 30-day public comment period on BPXA's application, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD)on behalf of several environmental organizations, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), the North Slope Borough
(NSB)Office of the Mayor and the NSB Department of Wildlife Management (DWM), the Native Village of Point Hope (NVPH), and Oceana and the Ocean Conservancy. CBD attached the comments submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC)on the 2006 MMS PEA as an appendix to its comments on the IHA. With the exception of some comments relevant to this specific action which are addressed here, comments on the Draft PEA have been addressed in Appendix D of the Final PEA and are not repeated here. Copies of those comment letters and the responses to comments can be found at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/* . CBD also attached the comments submitted by EarthJustice on the 2007 DPEIS. Those comments are not substantially different from the comments submitted on the PEA. There are no specific comments in that appendix to the BPXA project that were not raised in their comment letter specific to the BPXA proposed IHA or on the PEA. Therefore, they are not addressed separately in this document. General Activity Concerns *Comment 1:* The AEWC attached a copy of the signed Conflict Avoidance Agreement
(CAA)and the addendum to BPXA's application for an IHA. Both documents indicate that BPXA will cease all seismic operations on August 25. The clarification in timing provided by these documents addresses the concerns of the AEWC and the NSB regarding late season monitoring. *Response:* NMFS has reviewed both of these documents and concurs that additional late season monitoring is not needed for the BPXA Liberty project since seismic activity will not occur after August 25. *Comment 2:* CBD urges NMFS not to issue any take authorization to BPXA for the proposed activities unless and until the agency can ensure that mitigation measures are in place that truly avoid adverse impacts to all species and their habitats and only after full and adequate public participation has occurred and environmental review of the cumulative impacts of such activities on these species and their habitats has been undertaken. CBD feels that the proposed IHA does not meet these standards and therefore violates the MMPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other governing statutes and regulations. *Response:* In its proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008), NMFS outlined in detail the proposed mitigation and monitoring requirements. The implementation of these measures will reduce the impacts of the proposed survey on marine mammals and their surrounding environment to the lowest level practicable. The public was given 30 days to review and comment on these measures, in accordance with section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS has prepared a SEA to the 2006 MMS PEA. The PEA was available for comment in 2006. NMFS has fulfilled its obligations under NEPA by completing a SEA, which is not required to be available for public comment prior to its finalization. These documents fully analyze the cumulative impacts of seismic activity in the Arctic region. Additionally, NMFS completed a Biological Opinion in June, 2006, as required by section 7 of the ESA, which concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The 2008 seismic survey in the Liberty Prospect area of the Beaufort Sea does not meet any of the triggers that would require reinitiating consultation. Therefore, NMFS has not violated the ESA. *Comment 3:* CBD assumes that BPXA is seeking authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the take of polar bears and Pacific walrus that will occur from their proposed activities. While these species are outside of NMFS' jurisdiction for purposes of take authorization, they are clearly part of the “affected environment” adversely impacted by NMFS' action and therefore cannot lawfully be simply discounted, as NMFS has done in the proposed IHA. *Response:* Since the IHA issued by NMFS can only regulate take of species under NMFS' jurisdiction, the Notice of Proposed IHA does not go into detail regarding species under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. However, NMFS does analyze the impacts to these species in its NEPA analysis as part of the “affected environment.” The USFWS has issued a Letter of Authorization
(LOA)for BPXA to take species under its jurisdiction (i.e., polar bears and walruses). *Comment 4:* The NSB DWM states that transit of the *M/V Arctic Wolf* through the Chukchi Sea should not occur until the beluga harvest at Point Lay is completed. When it does transit through the Chukchi Sea, it should remain at least 80 km (50 mi) offshore to mitigate potential impacts to subsistence hunting of belugas, seals, or walrus. *Response:* Transit of the *Arctic Wolf* through the Chukchi Sea will be done in accordance with the requirements in the CAA signed by BPXA on May 30, 2008. *Comment 5:* Oceana and the Ocean Conservancy state that they agree with the concerns raised in the comment letter submitted on this application by CBD and others. The NVPH incorporated the CBD's comment in their entirety in their letter. *Response:* NMFS' responses to the CBD's comments are addressed in this section of the document. MMPA Concerns *Comment 6:* CBD and the NSB state that because the proposed seismic activity carries the real potential to cause injury or death to marine mammals, neither an IHA nor an LOA (because NMFS has not promulgated regulations for mortality by seismic activities) can be issued for BPXA's proposed activities. *Response:* Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA authorizes Level A (injury) harassment and Level B (behavioral) harassment takes. While NMFS' regulations indicate that a LOA must be issued if there is a potential for serious injury or mortality, NMFS does not believe that BPXA's seismic surveys require issuance of a LOA. As explained throughout this **Federal Register** Notice, it is highly unlikely that marine mammals would be exposed to sound pressure levels
(SPLs)that could result in serious injury or mortality. The best scientific information indicates that an auditory injury is unlikely to occur as apparently sounds need to be significantly greater than 180 dB for injury to occur (Southall *et al.* , 2007). NMFS has determined that exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight temporary threshold shift
(TTS)in hearing in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is a function of the total received pulse energy. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. BPXA's airgun array is considered to be of moderate size. For baleen whales, while there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS, there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales (bowhead and gray whales) would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of onset of TTS. For pinnipeds, information indicates that for single seismic impulses, sounds would need to be higher than 190 dB rms for TTS to occur while exposure to several seismic pulses indicates that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations. Consequently, NMFS has determined that it would be lawful to issue an IHA to BPXA for the 2008 seismic survey program. *Comment 7:* CBD states that the MMPA allows take authorization only for explicitly “specified activities” within a “specified geographic region” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i)). NMFS' regulations also explicitly require an applicant for take authorization to provide the “date(s) and duration” of the activity and “the specific geographic region where it will occur” (50 CFR 216.104(a)(2)). While BPXA's application does generally describe the location and duration of the seismic activities themselves, there is minimal description and no analysis of the impacts on marine mammals of the transport and deployment of the 11 vessels that will be involved in the survey. Presumably, some or all of these vessels would transit through U.S. waters in the Bering, Chukchi, and/or Beaufort Seas and harass marine mammals along the way. By failing to adequately specify the activities and impacts of these vessels, BPXA has failed to comply with (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i) and 50 CFR 216.104(a)(2)). *Response:* The majority of the vessels to be used in the seismic survey will be transported to the North Slope on trailers via the haul road to West Dock; however, one vessel will transit the Arctic Ocean to the survey area, leaving from Anchorage and steaming well offshore around Pt Barrow to West Dock. Normal shipping and transit operations do not rise to a level requiring an authorization under the MMPA. To require IHAs and LOAs for standard shipping would reduce the ability of NMFS to review activities that have a potential to cause harm to marine mammal populations. For example, in the Arctic Ocean, NMFS would need to issue authorizations for barging operations that supply the North Slope villages in addition to various onshore and offshore oil and gas projects. Instead, NMFS prefers to seek applications from activities that have a potential impact of a more serious nature, such as shipping and transit operations during the fall bowhead migration and subsistence harvest periods. On this matter, BPXA will (in keeping with the CAA signed by BPXA and the Native communities) follow a route 48 km (30 mi) offshore and will avoid Ledyard Bay. *Comment 8:* The NSB and CBD both state that an authorization of incidental take of marine mammals from specified activities can only be issued if such take will be limited to “small numbers” and have a “negligible impact” on the species or stock (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i)(I); 50 CFR 206.107). These are separate and distinct statutory requirements (Id.). NMFS must find that both requirements are met. CBD states that NMFS does not make a separate finding that only “small numbers” of marine mammals will be harassed by BPXA's planned activities. The closest thing to a separate “small numbers” finding is a single sentence in the Preliminary Conclusions section of the proposed IHA. In recent proposed IHAs, NMFS has directly cited its invalid “small numbers” definition. In the current IHA, NMFS does not directly cite to the regulatory definition of “small numbers”, but nevertheless conducts its analysis according to this invalid standard. Yet neither the **Federal Register** document nor BPXA's application provide any support whatsoever for this “conclusion.” The CBD continues that for BPXA's proposed seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, the number of marine mammals likely to be exposed to sounds of 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)or greater, and therefore “harassed” according to NMFS' operative thresholds, is almost 300. In absolute terms this number cannot be considered “small.” Given the MMPA is designed to protect not just populations but *individual* [emphasis added by commenter] marine mammals, any number in the hundreds simply cannot be considered “small.” The proposed seismic surveys simply are not designed to avoid impacting more than small numbers of marine mammals, and, therefore, the IHA must be denied. *Response:* NMFS believes that the small numbers requirement has been satisfied. The species most likely to be harassed during seismic surveys in the Liberty Prospect area of the Beaufort Sea is the ringed seal, with an “average estimate” of 156 exposures to SPLs of 160 dB or greater at 4 m (13 ft) tow depth. This does not mean that this is the number of ringed seals that will *actually* exhibit a disruption of behavioral patterns in response to the sound source; rather, it is simply the best estimate of the number of animals that potentially could have a behavioral modification due to the noise. For example, Moulton and Lawson
(2002)indicate that most pinnipeds exposed to seismic sounds lower than 170 dB do not visibly react to that sound, and, therefore, pinnipeds are not likely to react to seismic sounds unless they are greater than 170 dB re 1 Pa (rms). In addition, these estimates are calculated based upon line miles of survey effort, animal density, and the calculated zone of influence (ZOI). While this methodology is valid for seismic surveys that transect long distances, for those surveys that “mow the lawn” (that is, remain within a relatively small area, transiting back and forth while shooting seismic), the numbers tend to be highly inflated. However, BPXA tried to eliminate some of the overlap by entering the seismic survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic Information System
(GIS)to determine the area of ensonification. GIS was then used to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer around each seismic source line and then to calculate the total area within the buffers. This method avoids the large overlap of buffer zones from each seismic source line and hence an overestimation of the potential number of marine mammals exposed. The Level B harassment take estimate of 156 ringed seals is a small number, at least in relative terms, in that it represents only 0.06 percent of the regional stock size of that species (249,000), if each “exposure” at 160 dB represents an individual ringed seal. The percentage would be even lower if a higher SPL is required for a behavioral reaction (as is expected) or, if as expected, animals move out of the seismic area. As a result, NMFS believes that these “exposure” estimates are conservative, and seismic surveys will actually affect less than 0.06 percent of the Beaufort Sea ringed seal population. The “average estimates” of exposures for the remaining species that could potentially occur in the Liberty Prospect (i.e., beluga, bowhead, and gray whales and bearded and spotted seals) are only between 1 and 11 animals, which constitute at most 0.09 percent of any of these five species populations in the Arctic. Additionally, the presence of beluga, bowhead, and gray whales in the shallow water environment within the barrier islands is possible but expected to be very limited. Further, NMFS believes that it is incorrect to add the number of exposures together to support an argument that the numbers are not “small.” The MMPA is quite clear ”...taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock...” does not refer to an additive calculation (small numbers, not small number). Based on the fact that only small numbers of each species or stock will possibly be impacted and mitigation and monitoring measures will reduce the number of animals likely to be exposed to seismic pulses and therefore avoid injury and mortality, NMFS finds that BPXA's 3D OBC seismic survey will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. *Comment 9:* CBD states that in 2006, NMFS required surveys of a 120-dB safety zone for bowhead cow/calf pairs and “large groups” (greater than 12 individuals). If 12 bowheads constitute a “large group,” we do not see how the numerous bowheads that will be harassed by BPXA are a “small number.” This displacement and the disruption of pod integrity clearly constitute harassment under the MMPA. BPXA's activities can be expected to have similar effects. As with its “small numbers” conclusion, NMFS' determination that BPXA's activities will have a “negligible impact” also does not withstand scrutiny. First, as explained above and in our NEPA comments, the calculation of numbers of marine mammals harassed by BPXA is likely an underestimate as it relies on a received sound threshold (160/170 dB) that is too high. Any negligible impacts determination based on such flawed data is itself unsupportable. Moreover, NMFS has previously recognized a harassment threshold of 120 dB for continuous sounds. Given that BPXA is using two seismic ships in conjunction, firing every 4 s, these sources should be treated as “continuous” for purposes of estimating harassment thresholds. The MMPA is precautionary. In making its determinations, NMFS must give the benefit of the doubt to the species. As the D.C Circuit has repeatedly stated, “it is clear that 'the Act was to be administered for the benefit of the protected species rather than for the benefit of commercial exploitation'” ( *Kokechik Fishermen's Association* v. *Secretary of Commerce* , 839 F.2d 795, 800 (D.C. Cir. 1988) citing *Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc.* v. *Richardson* , 540 F.2d 1141, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). NMFS seems to be ignoring this mandate in analyzing the impacts of BPXA's activities. *Response:* On CBD's first point, there is no relationship between the term “large group” and “small numbers.” The first term refers to a number of 12 or more in order to implement additional mitigation measures, the second to a concept found in the MMPA, which has been addressed previously in this notice. NMFS agrees that while the “displacement and the disruption of pod integrity constitute harassment under the MMPA,” NMFS is unaware of any information that seismic survey operations will result in bowhead whale pod integrity disruption. On the contrary, traditional knowledge indicates that when migrating bowhead whales encounter anthropogenic noises, as a group they all divert away from the noise and continue to do so even if the noise ceases. Secondly, NMFS does not agree that the source used in BPXA's activity should be considered “continuous.” As mentioned in the IHA application and the **Federal Register** notice of proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008), each source vessel will have two 440 in 3 arrays comprised of four guns in clusters of 2 x 70 in 3 and 2 x 150 in 3 . Each source vessel will fire shots every 8 s, resulting in 4 s shot intervals with two operating source vessels. As the total time for each seismic “shot” will last approximately 6 msec, the amount of time without seismic sounds is 99.85 percent. As there is a significant period of time between shot events, this does not qualify as a continuous sound source. The decision in *Kokechik Fishermen's Association* v. *Secretary of Commerce* , 839 F.2d 795 (D.C. Circ. 1988), does not apply to this case because it is factually and legally distinguishable. The incidental take permit challenged in Kokechik was for commercial fishing operations, governed by section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA, whereas the incidental authorization that is the subject of this IHA is for an activity other than commercial fishing and is appropriately authorized pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D). Consequently, as discussed throughout this document, it is not unlawful for NMFS to apply section 101(a)(5)(D) when issuing an IHA to BPXA for the take of marine mammals incidental to seismic surveys. *Comment 10:* Additionally, CBD and NSB state that NMFS has no idea of the actual population status of several of the species subject to the proposed IHA. For example, in the most recent Stock Assessment Reports
(SARs)prepared pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS acknowledges it has no accurate information on the status of ribbon, spotted, bearded, and ringed seals. See 2007 Alaska SAR at 58 (“A reliable abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of ribbon seals is currently not available,” and “reliable data on trends in population abundance for the Alaska stock of ribbon seals are unavailable.”) *Id.* at 45 & 46 (“A reliable estimate of spotted seal population abundance is currently not available,” and “reliable data on trends in population abundance for the Alaska stock of spotted seals are considered unavailable.”) *Id.* at 49 & 50 (“There is no reliable population abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of bearded seals,” and “At present, reliable data on trends in population abundance for the Alaska stock of bearded seals are unavailable.”); and *Id.* at 53 & 54 (“There is no reliable population abundance estimate for the Alaska stock of ringed seals,” and “At present, reliable data on trends in population abundance for the Alaska stock of ringed seals are unavailable.”) CBD and NSB both indicate that without this data, NMFS cannot make a rational “negligible impact” finding. This is particularly so given there is real reason to be concerned about the status of these populations. Such concerns were raised in a recent letter to NMFS from the MMC following the MMC's 2005 annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. With regard to these species, the MMC cautioned against assuming a stable population. “Given apparent changes in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas and the declines of many other Alaska marine mammals, we are concerned that significant changes in the status of these seal species might go undetected and that the need for management actions would not be recognized in time to assure their conservation and continued function in these ecosystems, as well as their availability for subsistence use” (MMC, January 25, 2006 Letter). On December 20, 2007, CBD petitioned NMFS to list the ribbon seal under the ESA due to the loss of its sea-ice habitat from global warming and the adverse impacts of oil industry activities on the species. On May 27, 2008, CBD submitted a similar petition seeking listing of the spotted, bearded, and ringed seals. We request that NMFS consider the information contained in these petitions, as well as other information in its files on the status of these species, when analyzing the impacts of the proposed IHA on these increasingly imperiled species. Because the status of the ribbon, spotted, ringed, and bearded seals and other stocks is unknown, NMFS cannot conclude that surveys which will harass untold numbers of individuals of each species will have no more than a “negligible effect” on the stocks. *Response:* As required by the MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.102(a), NMFS has used the best scientific information available in making its determinations required under the MMPA. The Alaska SAR provides population estimates based on past survey work conducted in the region. The proposed survey by BPXA is not expected to have adverse impacts on ice seals. The activity will last for approximately 40 days in the open-water environment of the Beaufort Sea, where bearded and spotted seals are found only occasionally. On March 28, 2008, NMFS published a notice of a 90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status reviews of ribbon, bearded, ringed, and spotted seals (73 FR 16617). The comment period for this action closed on May 27, 2008. NMFS is currently reviewing all relevant information and within 1 year of receipt of the petition, NMFS shall conclude the review with a finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted. The ribbon seal petition submitted in December, 2007, is not relevant for this survey, as ribbon seals are not found in the project area. Information contained in the May, 2008, petition does not provide sufficient evidence that NMFS' preliminary determination that only small numbers of ringed, bearded, and spotted seals would be affected as a result of BPXA's seismic activity in the Liberty Prospect. *Comment 11:* CBD states that the analyses in the proposed IHA are largely confined to looking at the immediate effects of BPXA's airgun surveys in the Beaufort Sea on several marine mammal species. However, there is no analysis of the impacts of the 11 vessels and any related aircraft participating in the surveys on marine mammals. The impacts of these activities must be analyzed and mitigated before any “negligible impact” finding can be made. CBD and NSB believe that NMFS must consider these effects together with other oil and gas activities that affect these species, stocks and local populations, other anthropogenic risk factors such as climate change, and the cumulative effect of these activities over time. The effects should be analyzed with respect to their potential population consequences at the species level, stock level, and at the local population level. See *Anderson* v. *Evans* , 350 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2003) as amended by 371 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Even if the eastern Pacific gray whales overall or the smaller PCFA group of whales are not significantly impacted by the Makah Tribe's whaling, the summer whale population in the local Washington area may be significantly affected. Such local effects are a basis for a finding that there will be a significant impact from the Tribe's hunts.”) *Response:* Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS is required to determine whether the taking by the applicant's specified activity will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or population stocks. Cumulative impact assessments are NMFS' responsibility under NEPA, not the MMPA. In that regard, the MMS Final PEA and NMFS SEA address cumulative impacts. The Final PEA's cumulative activities scenario and cumulative impact analysis focused on oil and gas-related and non-oil and gas-related noise-generating events/activities in both Federal and State of Alaska waters that were likely and foreseeable. Other appropriate factors, such as Arctic warming, military activities, and noise contributions from community and commercial activities were also considered. Appendix D of the Final PEA addresses similar comments on cumulative impacts, including global warming. That information was incorporated into and updated in the NMFS 2008 SEA and into this document by citation. NMFS adopted the MMS Final PEA, and it is part of NMFS' Administrative Record. Finally, the proposition for which CBD cites Anderson was in the context of the court's analysis under NEPA, not MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D) authorizations, which was not at issue in *Anderson* . NMFS does not require authorizations under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for normal shipping or transit. A further explanation was addressed in the response to Comment 7. *Comment 12:* NSB and CBD are both concerned about cumulative impacts from multiple operations. BPXA's proposal is only one of numerous oil industry activities recently occurring, planned, or ongoing in the U.S. portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas (e.g., proposed IHA for on-ice seismic surveys in Harrison Bay; proposed scientific seismic survey by the National Science Foundation (NSF); NMFS' 5-year regulations for activities related to Northstar; Shell IHA for Beaufort Sea exploratory drilling; Conoco IHA for Beaufort Sea; Shell IHA for Beaufort Sea; two proposed IHAs for Chukchi Sea and two proposed for the Beaufort Sea; and USFWS 5-year regulations for oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea). No analysis of seismic surveys in the Russian or Canadian portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is mentioned either. Similarly, significant increases in onshore oil and gas development with attendant direct impacts and indirect impacts on marine mammals such as through increased ship traffic are also occurring and projected to occur at greater rates than in the past (e.g., NMFS' IHA for barge traffic to NPR-A; IHA for barge operations in the Beaufort Sea; and a notice regarding new oil and gas development in the NPR-A). CBD states that further cumulative effects impacting the marine mammals of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are outlined in their NEPA comments on the MMS PEA and the DPEIS. The NSB points out that in addition to the proposed offshore industrial operations listed above, there will be supply and fuel barging to villages, barging for support of onshore development and exploration, scientific cruises, climate change studies, USCG operations, tourist vessel traffic, and other activities as well. The cumulative impacts of all these activities must be factored into any negligible impact determination. Further, without an analysis of the effects of all of the planned operations, it is impossible to determine whether the monitoring plans are sufficient. *Response:* See the response to the previous comment. The issue of cumulative impacts has been addressed in the 2006 MMS Final PEA and the 2008 NMFS SEA. *Comment 13:* According to CBD, another factor causing NMFS' “negligible impact” findings to be suspect is the fact that the Beaufort Sea area is undergoing rapid change as a result of global warming. For species under NMFS' jurisdiction, and therefore subject to the proposed IHA, seals are likely to face the most severe consequences. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(ACIA)concluded that ringed, spotted, and bearded seals would all be severely negatively impacted by global warming this century. The ACIA stated that ringed seals are particularly vulnerable: “Ringed seals are likely to be the most highly affected species of seal because all aspects of their lives are tied to sea ice” (ACIA, 2004). In 2003, the NRC noted that oil and gas activities combined with global warming presented a serious cumulative impact to the species: “Climate warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort Sea region is likely to have serious consequences for ringed seals and polar bears, and those effects will accumulate with the effects of oil and gas activities in the region.” NMFS' failure to address global warming as a cumulative effect renders its negligible impact findings invalid. *Response:* Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, “the Secretary shall authorize... taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock by such citizens while engaging in that activity within that region if the Secretary finds that such harassment during each period concerned
(I)will have a negligible impact on such species or stock, and
(II)will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.” Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA does not require NMFS to base its negligible impact determination on the possibility of cumulative effects of other actions. As stated in previous responses, cumulative impact assessments are NMFS' responsibility under NEPA, not the MMPA. In that regard, the MMS 2006 Final PEA and NMFS' 2008 SEA address cumulative impacts. The PEA's cumulative activities scenario and cumulative impact analysis focused on oil and gas-related and non-oil and gas- related noise-generating events/activities in both Federal and State of Alaska waters that were likely and foreseeable. Other appropriate factors, such as Arctic warming, military activities, and noise contributions from community and commercial activities were also considered. Appendix D of the PEA addresses similar comments on cumulative impacts, including global warming. That information was incorporated into and updated in the NMFS 2008 SEA and into this document by citation. NMFS adopted the MMS Final PEA, and it is part of NMFS' Administrative Record. *Comment 14:* The NSB states that the proposed IHA should be more specific in defining dates for which seismic activities will be permitted. BPXA suggests the seismic surveys will take 60 days to complete. The company currently intends to conduct sound source verification of the airgun arrays and for the vessels to be used for the seismic surveys on July 15, 2008 (based on recent correspondence from BPXA to the AEWC). Therefore, the surveys are not likely to be completed by the end of August. NMFS should make clear that the IHA permits seismic surveying only until the end of August. Seismic activity should cease during the bowhead whale hunt at Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. *Response:* BPXA has informed NMFS that they have agreed to end all airgun activity on August 25 before the beginning of the bowhead whale hunt at Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. This change in duration is reflected in this notice. Marine Mammal Impact Concerns *Comment 15:* CBD states that they referenced the scientific literature linking seismic surveys with marine mammal stranding events in its comments to MMS on the 2006 Draft PEA and in comments to NMFS and MMS on the 2007 DPEIS. NMFS' failure to address these studies and the threat of serious injury or mortality to marine mammals from seismic surveys renders NMFS' conclusory determination that serious injury or morality will not occur from BPXA's activities arbitrary and capricious. *Response:* MMS briefly addressed the humpback whale stranding in Brazil on page PEA-127 in the Final PEA. Marine mammal strandings are also discussed in the NMFS/MMS DPEIS. A more detailed response to the cited strandings has been provided in several previous IHA issuance notices for seismic surveys. Additional information has not been provided by CBD or others regarding these strandings. As NMFS has stated, the evidence linking marine mammal strandings and seismic surveys remains tenuous at best. Two papers, Taylor *et al.*
(2004)and Engel *et al.* (2004), reference seismic signals as a possible cause for a marine mammal stranding. Taylor *et al.*
(2004)noted two beaked whale stranding incidents related to seismic surveys. The statement in Taylor *et al.*
(2004)was that the seismic vessel was firing its airguns at 1300 hrs on September 24, 2004, and that between 1400 and 1600 hrs, local fishermen found live-stranded beaked whales some 22 km (12 nm) from the ship's location. A review of the vessel's trackline indicated that the closest approach of the seismic vessel and the beaked whales' stranding location was 33 km (18 nm) at 1430 hrs. At 1300 hrs, the seismic vessel was located 46 km (25 nm) from the stranding location. What is unknown is the location of the beaked whales prior to the stranding in relation to the seismic vessel, but the close timing of events indicates that the distance was not less than 33 km (18 nm). No physical evidence for a link between the seismic survey and the stranding was obtained. In addition, Taylor *et al.*
(2004)indicate that the same seismic vessel was operating 500 km (270 nm) from the site of the Galapagos Island stranding in 2000. Whether the 2004 seismic survey caused two beaked whales to strand is a matter of considerable debate (see Cox *et al.* , 2004). NMFS believes that scientifically, these events do not constitute evidence that seismic surveys have an effect similar to that of mid-frequency tactical sonar. However, these incidents do point to the need to look for such effects during future seismic surveys. To date, follow-up observations on several scientific seismic survey cruises have not indicated any beaked whale stranding incidents. Engel *et al.* (2004), in a paper presented to the International Whaling Commission
(IWC)in 2004 (SC/56/E28), mentioned a possible link between oil and gas seismic activities and the stranding of eight humpback whales (seven off the Bahia or Espirito Santo States and one off Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). Concerns about the relationship between this stranding event and seismic activity were raised by the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC). The IAGC
(2004)argues that not enough evidence is presented in Engel *et al.*
(2004)to assess whether or not the relatively high proportion of adult strandings in 2002 is anomalous. The IAGC contends that the data do not establish a clear record of what might be a “natural” adult stranding rate, nor is any attempt made to characterize other natural factors that may influence strandings. As stated previously, NMFS remains concerned that the Engel *et al.*
(2004)article appears to compare stranding rates made by opportunistic sightings in the past with organized aerial surveys beginning in 2001. If so, then the data are suspect. Second, strandings have not been recorded for those marine mammal species expected to be harassed by seismic in the Arctic Ocean. Beaked whales and humpback whales, the two species linked in the literature with stranding events with a seismic component are not located in the area of the Beaufort Sea where seismic activities would occur (although humpback whales have been spotted in the Chukchi Sea and much farther west in the Beaufort Sea). Moreover, NMFS notes that in the Beaufort Sea, aerial surveys have been conducted by MMS and industry during periods of industrial activity (and by MMS during times with no activity). No strandings or marine mammals in distress have been observed during these surveys; nor reported by NSB inhabitants. Finally, if bowhead and gray whales react to sounds at very low levels by making minor course corrections to avoid seismic noise and mitigation measures require BPXA to ramp-up the seismic array to avoid a startle effect, strandings are highly unlikely to occur in the Arctic Ocean. Ramping-up of the array will allow marine mammals the opportunity to vacate the area of ensonification and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing capabilities. In conclusion, NMFS does not expect any marine mammals will incur serious injury or mortality as a result of seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea in 2008. *Comment 16:* CBD states that seismic surveys pose the risk of permanent hearing loss by marine mammals, which itself is a “serious injury” likely to lead to the death of these animals. Seismic pulses of sufficient volume, such as those proposed to be used by BPXA, have the potential to cause temporary and permanent hearing loss in marine mammals. *Response:* NMFS does not expect that animals will be injured, or for that matter seriously injured or killed, if they are within the 180 dB (cetaceans) and 190 dB (pinnipeds) isopleths. These criteria were set to approximate where Level A harassment (defined as “any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild”) from acoustic sources begins. NMFS has determined that a TTS, which is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposures to a strong sound may occur at these levels. For sound exposures at or somewhat above TTS, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. TTS is not an injury, as there is no injury to individual cells. As NMFS has published several times in **Federal Register** notices regarding issuance of IHAs for seismic survey work or in supporting documentation for such authorizations, for whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be a function of the energy content of the pulse. Given the data available at the time of the IHA issuance, the received level of a single seismic pulse might need to be approximately 210 dB re 1 μPa rms in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is a function of the total received pulse energy. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. Since BPXA is operating a moderate-sized array, this array would be even smaller. For baleen whales, there are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce TTS. However, there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales (bowhead and gray whales) would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of onset of TTS. A marine mammal within a radius of 100 m (328 ft) or less around a typical large array of operating airguns may be exposed to a few seismic pulses with levels greater than or equal to 205 dB and possibly more pulses if the marine mammal moves with the seismic vessel. When permanent threshold shift
(PTS)occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges. However, there is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with airgun arrays larger than that proposed to be used in BPXA's survey. Given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. The information provided here regarding PTS is for large airgun arrays. BPXA is proposing to use an 880 in 3 array, which is considered mid-size. Therefore, animals would have to be very close to the vessel to incur serious injuries. Because of the monitoring and mitigation measures required in the IHA (i.e., marine mammal observers [MMOs], ramp-up, power-down, shutdown, etc.), it is expected that appropriate corrective measures can be taken to avoid any injury, including serious injury. *Comment 17:* The NSB DWM states that the summary in Section 3 of BPXA's application reflects the changes that have been observed in recent years regarding the distribution of marine mammals. Industrial surveys have revealed marine mammals not commonly seen in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas until recently. These include fin, minke, and humpback whales. Hunters have noticed increased numbers of narwhals as well. While BPXA has appropriately included most of these species in this section, it has not included humpback whales. MMOs hired by industry have encountered humpback whales in the Beaufort Sea more frequently than they have seen fin or minke whales. According to the NSB DWM, humpback whales should too be considered in BPXA's IHA application. Additionally, the NSB feels that Section 4 of BPXA's application provides a good summary of the stocks of marine mammals that may be encountered in the area that BPXA has proposed to conduct seismic surveys. However, humpbacks should be considered in assessments of takes of marine mammals from seismic surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. *Response:* Until 2007, historic and recent information did not indicate humpback whales inhabit northern portions of the Chukchi Sea or enter the Beaufort Sea. No sightings of humpback whales were reported during aerial surveys of endangered whales in summer
(July)and autumn (August-October) of 1979-1987 in the Northern Bering Sea (from north of St. Lawrence Island), the Chukchi Sea north of lat. 66° N. and east of the International Date Line, and the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from long. 157° 01' W. east to long. 140° W. and offshore to lat. 72° N. (Ljungblad *et al.* , 1988). Humpbacks have not been observed during annual aerial surveys of the Beaufort Sea conducted in September and October from 1982-2007 (e.g., Monnett and Treacy, 2005; Moore *et al.* , 2000; Treacy, 2002; Monnett, 2008, pers. comm.). During a 2003 research cruise in which all marine mammals observed were recorded from July 5 to August 18 in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, no humpback whales were observed (Bengtson and Cameron, 2003). One observation of one humpback whale was recorded in 2006 by MMOs aboard a vessel in the southern Chukchi Sea outside of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (Patterson *et al.* , 2007; MMS, 2006, unpublished data). During summer 2007 between August 1 and October 16, humpback whales were observed during seven observation sequence events in the western Alaska Beaufort Sea (1 animal) and eastern and southeastern Chukchi Sea (6 animals; MMS, 2007, unpublished data) and one other observation in the southern Chukchi Sea in 2007 (Sekiguchi, In prep.). The one humpback sighting in the Beaufort Sea in 2007 was in Smith Bay, which is hundreds of kilometers west of the BPXA project area. Therefore, humpback whales are not expected to occur in the Liberty Prospect area, the location of BPXA's survey. *Comment 18:* CBD and the NSB state that NMFS' estimate of the number of marine mammals that may be harassed under the proposed authorization is based on the assumption that sounds below 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)do not constitute harassment. This assumption is incorrect, and therefore BPXA's and NMFS' estimated take numbers represent an underestimate of the possible true impact. As noted above, an activity can constitute harassment if it has the “potential” to affect marine mammal behavior. In our NEPA comments on the 2006 PEA, we pointed out the numerous studies showing significant behavioral impacts from received sounds well below 160 dB. Even the 2006 PEA itself acknowledges that impacts to bowheads occur at levels of 120 dB and below. This clearly meets the statutory definition of harassment and demonstrates that the numbers of bowhead estimated in the proposed IHA to be taken by BPXA's activities likely constitute a significant underestimate. NMFS' “small numbers” conclusion is therefore arbitrary and capricious for this reason as well. The NSB DWM notes that BPXA suggests that bowheads are responsive to industrial sounds to the 160 to 170 dB zones. However, it is not clear why they do not also acknowledge that bowheads avoided an area around active seismic to much lower sound levels, down to 120 dB or lower (Richardson *et al.* , 1999). Furthermore, BPXA has avoided referencing studies from Northstar showing that bowheads are deflected by very low levels of industrial sounds, possibly even lower than 120 dB. Bowheads' sensitivity to very low level of industrial sounds must be considered in assessing impacts from one industrial operation, as well as impacts from cumulative impacts from multiple operations. *Response:* On the first point, NMFS uses the best science available when making its determinations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. On the second point, CBD misunderstands the purpose of “potential to harass” in the MMPA. This was not meant to mean that highly speculative numbers of marine mammals could “potentially be harassed” but that Congress intended for U.S. citizens to apply for an MMPA authorization prior to its activity taking marine mammals, not waiting until after the taking occurred and someone needed to “prove” that the taking happened. As stated previously, the “take” numbers provided in BPXA's application are considered the numbers of animals “exposed” to the sounds based on species density, the area potentially affected, and the length of time the noise would be expected to last. This does not necessarily indicate that all animals will have a significant behavioral reaction to that sound at the level of 160 dB. In addition, CBD took the maximum number of marine mammals (based on animal density), instead of the expected density (as explained in BPXA's application). Using maximum density estimates is problematic as it tends to inflate harassment take estimates to an unreasonably high number and is not based on empirical science. As a result, and understanding the assumptions made in BPXA's IHA application, NMFS believes that far fewer marine mammals would receive SPLs sufficient to cause a significant biological reaction by the species. In regard to bowhead whales, while this species reacts to sounds at levels lower than 160 dB, during its fall westward migration (but not while in a non-migratory behavior), those reactions are not detectable by MMOs and that information is obtained only later during computer analysis of collected data. Richardson *et al.*
(1999)monitored the reactions of migrating bowhead whales and found that most avoided the area of seismic activity within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the source at levels as low as 120-130 dB (rms). Also, the Northstar recordings are conducted during the fall migration westward across the Beaufort. Migration will not occur during the time of BPXA's survey. Therefore, the timing of the survey makes it unnecessary to monitor out to the 120-dB radius. Lastly, the requirement to assess cumulative impacts is required under NEPA, not the MMPA. Cumulative impacts were assessed and analyzed in both the 2006 PEA and the 2008 SEA. *Comment 19:* The NSB DWM and CBD states that a 160-dB threshold for belugas is similarly flawed. As NMFS is aware, belugas are among the most sensitive of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound. In previous IHA notices, NMFS has acknowledged the impacts of sounds on belugas even at significant distances from a sound source. For example, in a recent proposed take authorization related to seismic surveys by NSF, NMFS noted that belugas can be displaced at distances of up to 20 km (12.4 mi) from a sound source. Aerial surveys during seismic operations in the southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded much lower sighting rates of beluga whales within 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi) of an active seismic vessel. These results were consistent with the low number of beluga sightings reported by observers aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting that some belugas might be avoiding the seismic operations at distances of 10-20 km (6.2-12.4 mi). Such displacement clearly meets the statutory definition of harassment and demonstrates that the number of belugas estimated to be taken by BPXA's activities constitutes a significant underestimate. Belugas are also extremely sensitive to ships. A study of Canadian belugas showed flight responses from ice-breakers at received sound levels as low as 94 dB. Presumed alarm vocalizations of belugas indicated that they were aware of an approaching ship over 80 km (50 mi) away and they showed strong avoidance reactions to ships approaching at distances of 35-50 km (22-31 mi) when received noise levels ranged from 94 to 105 dB re 1 Pa in the 20-1000 Hz band. The “flee” response of the beluga involved large herds undertaking long dives close to or beneath the ice edge; pod integrity broke down and diving appeared asynchronous. Belugas were displaced along ice edges by as much as 80 km (50 mi; Finley *et al.* , 1990). The NSB DWM states that the 120-dB zone should be used for estimating numbers of beluga whales that may be taken during seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea, especially if BPXA surveys occur in September or later. *Response:* BPXA will be conducting their activities in shallow waters of maximum 9.1 m (30 ft) deep inside the barrier islands of the Liberty Prospect in Foggy Island Bay in July and August (and not into September or later). Much of the Beaufort Sea seasonal population of belugas enters the Mackenzie River estuary (in Canada) for a short period from July through August to molt their epidermis, but they spend most of the summer in offshore waters of the eastern Beaufort Sea, Amundsen Gulf, and more northerly areas (Davis and Evans, 1982; Harwood *et al.* , 1996; Richard *et al.* , 2001). Belugas are rarely seen in the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea during the early summer. During late summer and autumn, most belugas migrate westward far offshore near the pack ice (Frost *et al.* , 1988; Hazard, 1988; Clarke *et al.* , 1993; Miller *et al.* , 1999), with the main fall migration corridor approximately 160 km (100 mi) or more north of the coast. Therefore, most belugas migrate well offshore away from the proposed project area, although there is a small possibility that they could occur near the project area in small numbers. Additionally, as BPXA does not intend to use ice-breakers during its seismic survey, statements regarding beluga reactions to ice-breaker noise are not relevant to this activity. Estimated Take Calculation Concerns *Comment 20:* The NSB DWM points out that BPXA states that the densities of marine mammals used to estimate takes are based on 95 percent of seismic surveys occurring in summer (i.e., July and August) and 5 percent occurring during fall (i.e., September). If the seismic surveys will last for 60 days and BPXA won't begin until mid-July (as BPXA recently informed the AEWC), the seismic surveys will last into mid-September. The timing and duration of seismic surveys suggests that 75 percent of the seismic surveys will occur in summer and 25 percent will occur in fall. Therefore, the estimated numbers of bowhead and beluga whales in BPXA's application and possibly other marine mammals that will be harassed are too low. The estimates of takes must be recalculated to provide a more realistic estimate of how many marine mammals will be taken. This correction is especially needed in assessing cumulative impacts to marine mammals from the multiple industrial activities planned for 2008. *Response:* BPXA has informed NMFS that the survey will last for approximately 40 days and that airgun activity will cease on August 25. Therefore, NMFS believes that a recalculation of the take estimates is not needed, as they may in fact be overestimates now that the duration of the project has been scaled back. Subsistence Use Concerns *Comment 21:* CBD states that the MMPA requires that any incidental take authorized will not have “an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” by Alaska Natives. Additionally, CBD notes they are aware that the NVPH, a federally recognized tribal government, has submitted comments opposing the proposed take authorizations due to impacts on subsistence, and along with many community members has commented on myriad other related agency documents that have direct bearing on these take authorization such as the Chukchi Sea Sale 193, MMS Five-Year Plan, and the DPEIS. Similarly, the NSB, the AEWC, and REDOIL have all filed challenges in federal court and/or the IBLA challenging offshore activities due to impacts on the subsistence hunt of bowheads and other species. In light of the positions of these communities and organizations, we do not see how NMFS can lawfully make the findings required under the MMPA for approving BPXA's proposed IHA. *Response:* NMFS believes that the concerns expressed by subsistence hunters and their representatives have been addressed by NMFS through the comments that they submitted to this action, which are responded to in this section of the document. *Comment 22:* The NSB feels that if BPXA is permitted to conduct seismic after the bowhead hunt, NMFS must impose additional monitoring requirements, as discussed above. Without additional monitoring, it will not be possible for NMFS to determine whether seismic affects the migration in ways that could result in unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence. *Response:* As stated previously in this document, BPXA has stated that it no longer plans to conduct seismic data acquisition after the subsistence bowhead hunt in the Beaufort Sea. *Comment 23:* The NVPH states that the MMPA requires NMFS to find that the specified activities covered by an IHA “will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of [marine mammal populations] for taking for subsistence uses “ (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(i)(II)). NMFS is required to make a preliminary determination in its **Federal Register** notice that the proposed activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. See 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(iii) (proposed authorizations must be made available for public comment); 50 CFR 216.104(c) (preliminary finding of no unmitigable adverse impact must be proposed for public comment). In its **Federal Register** notice, NMFS makes a preliminary finding that BPXA's proposed surveys will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of affected populations of marine mammals-including bowhead whales, beluga whales, and seals-for subsistence uses. That finding is arbitrary because NMFS fails to provide the substantive analysis required to support its conclusory finding. As an initial matter, NMFS should recognize that bowhead and beluga whales and ringed seals, all of which may be harassed as a result of BPXA's activities, each provide unique and irreplaceable subsistence resources that are important to the preservation of our culture. Our communities consume bowhead whale meat, which provides food for the ceremonial Nalukataq and important nutritional values. Bones from bowhead whales are used for carving by Inupiat artists, and bowhead jawbones are used to protect graveyards from animals. Communities along the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas also rely on beluga whales and ringed seals for subsistence. Other subsistence resources cannot be substituted for these important resources. All of these species move widely throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and BPXA's proposed activities may affect subsistence uses of these animals not only in the location of the activities but also elsewhere. In addition, subsistence foods are traditionally shared among communities, so diminishment of subsistence resources in one area-for instance Barrow, Nuiqsut, or Kaktovik-may have a ripple effect throughout other North Slope communities. A threat to these animals and their availability for subsistence is a threat to our culture. Even a slight interference with the availability of these species to communities on the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will constitute an unmitigable adverse impact to their overall availability for subsistence uses and their unique ability to meet specific subsistence needs in Nuiqsut, Point Hope, and elsewhere. *Response:* NMFS believes that it has implemented mitigation measures for conducting seismic surveys to avoid, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts on coastal marine mammals and thereby, the needs of the subsistence communities that depend upon these mammals for sustenance and cultural cohesiveness. For the 2008 season, these mitigation measures are similar to those contained in the CAA signed by BPXA on May 30, 2008, and include black-out periods during subsistence hunts for bowhead and beluga whales, avoidance of transiting in the spring leads, and coastal community communication stations and emergency assistance. BPXA's activities will cease prior to the beginning of the bowhead hunt in the Beaufort Sea. It will also occur at a time of year when little seal subsistence hunting occurs in the project area. *Comment 24:* In evaluating the effects of seismic noise on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses, NMFS states that BPXA proposes to mitigate impacts to subsistence activities through the negotiation of a CAA among itself, the AEWC, and the Whaling Captains' Associations of the affected North Slope communities, including the NVPH (73 FR 24248, May 2, 2008). This agreement is also supposed to cover impact to subsistence uses of seals. The NSB points out that the CAA does not address potential impacts to seal hunts, however, and NMFS cannot rely on a CAA with AEWC and the village whaling captains to ensure that no unmitigable adverse impacts occur to the subsistence hunt of other marine mammals. The NVPH believes that by relying on this yet-to-be-completed agreement to mitigate impacts to subsistence, NMFS explicitly defers its determination whether BPXA's activities will have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of bowhead whales and seals for subsistence uses until after such a CAA has been negotiated. NMFS does not give any indication how it will assess the sufficiency of a CAA. It states that if no CAA is reached among the parties, NMFS may impose additional mitigation measures in the IHA. It does not identify those mitigation measures. Nevertheless, NMFS issues a preliminary conclusion that seismic activities will not have an unmitigables adverse impact on the subsistence uses of affected marine mammals (73 FR 24253, May 2, 2008). This preliminary conclusion is expressly conditioned on the implementation and effectiveness of restrictions included in a CAA or mitigation measures included in an IHA. NVPH and the NSB both note that absent specification of these restrictions and mitigation measures, NMFS cannot reasonably conclude that they will prove effective. Because it relies on the presumed effectiveness of non-existent mitigation measures, NMFS' preliminary conclusion is arbitrary and capricious, as NMFS has failed to prescribe measures that will minimize impacts to subsistence. If NMFS bases its final “unmitigable adverse impact” determination for affected marine mammals on conditions imposed in a CAA, or, absent conclusion of a CAA, subsequent mitigation measures in an IHA, it must provide for another public comment period during which the public is able to evaluate such conditions. Otherwise, the agency has effectively deprived the public of the opportunity to comment on this determination. *Response:* NMFS understands that the CAA does not address issues related to subsistence hunt of seals and apologizes for this erroneous statement in the proposed IHA notice. However, NMFS feels that BPXA's seismic survey will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on pinniped subsistence hunts in the Arctic region. Ringed seals, the most common pinniped in the project area, are primarily hunted from October through June, outside of the timeframe of the project. Thus, there should be no effect on subsistence harvest of ringed seals from the proposed activity. BPXA signed a CAA with the AEWC on May 30, 2008. BPXA's activities will not occur during the beluga hunts, and the company agrees to abide by the transit routes to the project site laid out in the CAA. Additionally, BPXA will end seismic shooting by August 25 to avoid impacts on the fall bowhead subsistence hunt in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The design of BPXA's proposed surveys is itself a mitigation measure. The location of the project (inside the barrier islands) is in water too shallow to be suitable habitat for most whale species. Additionally, activities will not occur during subsistence hunting of bowheads or belugas. NMFS presented all of this information in its proposed IHA notice. Therefore, additional time for public comment is not warranted. *Comment 25:* The NVPH states that BPXA appears not to have complied with the regulatory requirement to include a plan of cooperation
(POC)or a description of the measures that will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. For example, the **Federal Register** notes that BPXA had not even met with the very subsistence communities potentially most directly affected by its activities prior to submitting its IHA application. See 73 FR 24248 (noting two meetings with co-management organizations that took place prior to the submission of the IHA application, but no meetings at all with affected communities such as Nuiqsut or Kaktovik). BPXA also appears to have failed to meet its obligation to provide a “schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential legal conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of cooperation,” (50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)(ii)), or to have specified what plans it has to continue to meet with affected communities during its operations in order to resolve conflicts (50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)(iv)). See id. (setting forth no schedule to meet with affected communities; noting only that “subsequent meetings” will be held “as necessary”). BPXA also does not appear to have described the measures it will take to ensure that seismic surveys will not interfere with subsistence whaling and seal hunting, as the regulations require, relying instead on a non-existent, hypothetical CAA. Absent a detailed description, it is impossible for NMFS or Point Hope to actually determine how BPXA intends to reduce subsistence impacts, let alone to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of such measures. *Response:* Since publication of the **Federal Register** notice of proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008), BPXA has submitted an updated list of POC meetings with affected communities. On February 7, 2008, BPXA met with Nuiqsut and Kaktovik whalers in Deadhorse to introduce the proposed 2008 offshore oil and gas activities. On February 28, 2008, BPXA attended the First Annual Programmatic CAA Meeting in Barrow with AEWC commissioners and representatives from the villages. At the Open-water Meeting in Anchorage in April, BPXA presented its project and monitoring and mitigation plans to NMFS, MMS, the AEWC, the NSB, and other members of the public. On May 13, 2008, BPXA met with the NSB DWM to discuss Liberty seismic environmental monitoring plans and concerns. Also, on June 18, 2008, BPXA held two meetings in Nuiqsut to provide an overview of the seismic projects, one with Nuiqsut whaling captains and one with both Nuiqsut whaling captains and community representatives. Responses to previous comments in this document address the concern that BPXA has not described the measures it will take to avoid interfering with subsistence hunts in the Beaufort Sea. Mitigation Concerns *Comment 26:* CBD states that the MMPA authorizes NMFS to issue a small take authorization only if it can first find that it has required adequate monitoring of such taking and all methods and means of ensuring the least practicable impact have been adopted (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(I)). The proposed IHA largely ignores this statutory requirement. In fact, while the proposed IHA lists various monitoring measures, it contains virtually nothing by way of mitigation measures. The specific deficiencies of the “standard” MMS mitigation measures as outlined in the 2006 PEA are described in detail in our NEPA comments, incorporated by reference, and are not repeated here. The problems with the mitigation measures as explained for NEPA purposes are even more compelling with regard to the substantive standards of the MMPA. Because the MMPA explicitly requires that “means effecting the least practicable impact” on a species, stock, or habitat be included, an IHA must explain why measures that would reduce the impact on a species were not chosen (i.e., why they were not “practicable”). Neither the proposed IHA, BPXA's application, the 2006 PEA, or the 2007 DPEIS attempts to do this. *Response:* The proposed IHA outlined several mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements to be implemented during the Beaufort Sea survey. By way of mitigation, the Notice of Proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008) described the following actions to be undertaken by BPXA including: speed and course alterations; power-downs and shutdowns when marine mammals are sighted just outside or in the specified safety zones; and ramp-up procedures. Speed or course alteration helps to keep marine mammals out of the 180 or 190 dB safety zones. Additionally, power-down and shutdown procedures are used to prevent marine mammals from exposure to received levels that could potentially cause injury. Ramping-up provides a “warning” to marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns, providing them time to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of hearing capabilities. Because these mitigation measures will be included in the IHA to BPXA, no marine mammal injury or mortality is anticipated. Numbers of individuals of all species taken are expected to be small (relative to stock or population size), and the take is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. Additionally, the survey design itself has been created to mitigate the effects to the lowest level practicable. The total geographic area for which seismic data are required has been minimized by re-analyzing and re-interpreting existing data, thereby reducing the total area from approximately 220 km 2 (85 mi 2 ) to approximately 91 km 2 (35 mi 2 ). Also, the total airgun discharge volume has been reduced to the minimum volume needed to obtain the required data. Lastly, two seismic source vessels will be used simultaneously (alternating their shots) to minimize the total survey period. BPXA has also agreed to complete all of its seismic acquisition by August 25, prior to the westward migration of the bowhead whales across the Beaufort and the start of the subsistence hunt of these animals. Beluga whales are not hunted in the Liberty Prospect area during the time of the BPXA survey. Additionally, although ringed seals are available to be taken by subsistence hunters year-round, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when this species is typically harvested (October through June). For these reasons, NMFS believes that it has required all methods and means necessary to ensure the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks. CBD's comments on the 2006 PEA and the responses to those comments were addressed in Appendix D of the PEA and are not repeated here. *Comment 27:* CBD states that while NMFS has not performed any analysis of why additional mitigation measures are not “practicable,” the proposed IHA contains information to suggest that many such measures are in fact practicable. For example, in 2006, NMFS required monitoring of a 120-dB safety zone for bowhead cow/calf pairs and monitoring of a 160-dB safety zone for large groups of bowhead and gray whales (greater than 12 individuals). The BPXA IHA is silent as to the applicability of these safety zones. Moreover, the fact that a 120-dB safety zone is possible for aggregations of bowheads means that such a zone is also possible for other marine mammals such as belugas which are also subject to disturbance at similar sound levels. The failure to require such, or at least analyze it, violates the MMPA. The NSB DWM adds that the 120-dB zone must be considered for bowheads and possibly belugas if surveys are to occur in September and that sound source verification tests should empirically measure, and not extrapolate, the distance to which BPXA's seismic sounds for Liberty attenuate to 120 dB. *Response:* NMFS has considered a monitoring and shutdown requirement for the 160-dB and 120-dB safety zones and has determined they would not be applicable to the BPXA survey. These measures are only required if activities occur after August 25 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. NMFS has found the 160-dB safety zone to be practicable in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, IHA holders operating in the Chukchi Sea will be required to monitor and shutdown within the 160-dB safety radius if an aggregation of 12 or more bowhead or gray whales that appear to be engaged in a non-migratory, significant biological behavior is observed during a monitoring program. Seismic activity will not recommence until two consecutive surveys indicate the animals are no longer present within the 160-dB zone. While aerial surveys out to the 120-dB will be required in the Beaufort Sea for activities occurring after August 25, NMFS has found that such surveys are impractical in the Chukchi Sea because of the lack of adequate landing facilities and the prevalence of fog and other inclement weather in that area, thereby resulting in safety concerns. Also, because the Liberty seismic survey will take place shoreward of the barrier islands in very shallow waters from 1-9.1 m (3-30 ft; where high seismic propagation loss is expected), few bowhead whales are likely to occur in the project area. The distance of received levels that might elicit avoidance will likely not (or barely) reach the main migration corridor and then only through the inter-island passages. BPXA's activities will cease before the beginning of the fall bowhead migration across the U.S. Beaufort Sea. Additionally, gray whales have not commonly or consistently been seen in the area of the Beaufort Sea where BPXA will conduct its activities over the last 25-30 years. *Comment 28:* The MMC recommends that NMFS issue the IHA provided that NMFS require:
(a)the applicant to implement all practicable monitoring and mitigation measures to protect bowhead whales and other marine mammal species from disturbance and that ramp-up be allowed only when the entire area encompassed by the safety zones is clearly visible for a sufficiently long period to ensure that marine mammals are not present; and
(b)operations to be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and if that death or injury could be attributable to the applicant's activities. Any suspension should remain in place until NMFS:
(1)has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely to occur; or
(2)has issued regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. *Response:* NMFS concurs with the MMC's recommendation and extends the requirement to any type of injury, not just serious injury, if it could be attributable to BPXA's seismic survey activities. A condition to this effect has been included in the IHA. Ramp-up will not be permitted unless the entire area encompassed by the safety zones has been clearly visible for at least 30 min prior to start-up of the airguns. Monitoring Concerns *Comment 29:* CBD states that MMOs cannot effectively detect 100 percent of the marine mammals that may enter the safety zones. NMFS allows seismic vessels to operate airguns during periods of darkness, but does not require MMOs to monitor the exclusion zones during nighttime operations except when starting airguns at night or if the airgun was powered down due to marine mammal presence the preceding day. Even during the day, visually detecting marine mammals from the deck of a seismic vessel presents challenges and may be of limited effectiveness due to glare, fog, rough seas, the small size of animals such as seals, and the large proportion of time that animals spend submerged. CBD feels that there is no documentation to prove that BPXA's operations will more effectively monitor exclusion zones than in 2006 and 2007. Therefore, marine mammals will likely be exposed to sound levels that could result in permanent hearing loss and therefore serious injury. As such, because BPXA's proposed activities “have the potential to result in serious injury or mortality” to marine mammals, NMFS cannot lawfully issue the requested IHA. Moreover, NMFS cannot authorize some take (i.e., harassment) if other unauthorized take (i.e., serious injury or mortality) may also occur. However, even if an IHA were the appropriate vehicle to authorize take for BPXA's planned activities, because the proposed IHA is inconsistent with the statutory requirements for issuance, it cannot lawfully be granted by NMFS. *Response:* The seismic vessels will be traveling at speeds of about 1-5 knots (1.9-9.3 km/hr). With a 180-dB safety range of 880 m (0.55 mi) at full strength at 4 m (13 ft) tow depth, a vessel will have moved out of the safety zone within a few minutes. As a result, during underway seismic operations, MMOs are instructed to concentrate on the area ahead of the vessel, not behind the vessel where marine mammals would need to be voluntarily swimming towards the vessel to enter the 180-dB zone. In fact, in some of NMFS' IHAs issued for scientific seismic operations, shutdown is not required for marine mammals that approach the vessel from the side or stern in order to ride the bow wave or rub on the seismic streamers deployed from the stern (and near the airgun array) as some scientists consider this a voluntary action on the part of an animal that is not being harassed or injured by seismic noise. While NMFS concurs that shutdowns are not likely warranted for these voluntary approaches, in the Arctic Ocean, all seismic surveys are shutdown or powered down for all marine mammal close approaches. Also, in all seismic IHAs, including BPXA's IHA, NMFS requires that the safety zone be monitored for 30 min prior to beginning ramp-up to ensure that no marine mammals are present within the safety zones. Implementation of ramp-up is required because it is presumed it would allow marine mammals to become aware of the approaching vessel and move away from the noise, if they find the noise annoying. Total darkness will not set in during BPXA's survey. During the first two weeks of data acquisition, there will be 24 hrs of daylight. However, during times of impaired light, MMOs will be equipped with night vision devices. During poor visibility conditions, if the entire safety zone is not visible for the entire 30 min pre-ramp-up period, operations cannot begin. NMFS believes that an IHA is the proper authorization required to cover BPXA's survey. As described in other responses to comments in this document, NMFS does not believe that there is a risk of serious injury or mortality from these activities. The monitoring reports from 2006 and 2007 do not note any instances of serious injury or mortality. Additionally, NMFS feels it has met all of the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (as described throughout this document) and therefore can issue an IHA to BPXA for seismic operations in 2008. *Comment 30:* The NSB and CBD states that with regard to nighttime and poor visibility conditions, BPXA proposes essentially no limitations on operations, even though the likelihood of observers seeing marine mammals in such conditions is very low. The obvious solution, not analyzed by BPXA or NMFS, is to simply prohibit seismic surveying when conditions prevent observers for detecting all marine mammals in the safety zone. CBD also states that in its treatment of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), NMFS and BPXA are also deficient. While past IHAs have required PAM, this IHA completely ignores even discussing the possibility of using such monitoring. Additional mitigation measures that are clearly “practicable” are included in our NEPA comments on the PEA and DPEIS and incorporated by reference here. *Response:* The time of year when BPXA will be conducting its survey is a time when total darkness does not occur. During the first 2 weeks of data acquisition, it will be light 24 hr/day. Beginning around July 29, nautical twilight will begin to occur for short periods of time each day, with the amount of time that twilight occurs increasing by about 15-30 minutes each day. Nautical twilight is defined as the sun being approximately 12° below the horizon. At the beginning or end of nautical twilight, under good atmospheric conditions and in the absence of other illumination, general outlines of ground objects may be distinguishable, but detailed outdoor operations are not possible, and the horizon is indistinct. During periods of impaired light or fog, operations will not be allowed to resume after a full shutdown if the entire 180-dB safety radius cannot be monitored for a full 30-min period. Additionally, night vision devices will be onboard each source vessel. BPXA and NMFS considered the use of PAM for this project. However, since cetaceans are not expected to be present in the shallow water environment, it was determined not to be practical to require such monitoring. It should be noted, however, that every fall, BPXA deploys Directional Autonomous Seafloor Acoustic Recorders near its Northstar facility in the Beaufort Sea, which is slightly westward of this survey to record bowhead whale calls during the fall migration. Results of those recordings are available in the Northstar reports and can be found on the NMFS PR website (see ADDRESSES for availability). *Comment 31:* The NSB DWM notes that in its application, BPXA states MMOs “on board of the vessels play a key role in monitoring these safety zones and implementation of mitigation measures.” The 190 and 180 dB safety zones (at an airgun depth of 4 m, 13 ft) are 390 m and 880 m (0.24 mi and 0.55 mi), respectively. The NSB DWM is concerned given that BPXA is using relatively small vessels for conducting the seismic surveys, it is not clear that the MMOs will be observing from a high enough position to adequately clear the safety zones, especially in inclement weather or darkness. Additional information is needed regarding the adequacy of MMOs for clearing safety zones, especially with the relatively small safety zones anticipated for these seismic surveys. BPXA has considered the limitation of MMOs in implementing mitigation measures to prevent Level A takes. BPXA has not planned on any additional monitoring efforts, however. If seismic surveys are going to extend into September, when darkness and inclement weather are more common than in August, there should be additional monitoring efforts to avoid Level A takes and to evaluate numbers of Level B takes of marine mammals. Aerial surveys or acoustic monitoring would be suitable means to this additional monitoring. *Response:* Bridge height for the Peregrine is 4.5 m (14.8 ft) and 3.7 m (12.1 ft) for the Miss Dianne. In addition to these heights, one also needs to take into account the height of the MMO (BPXA assumes an average height of 1.7 m, 5.6 ft). From these heights, MMOs are able to clear the 180-dB and 190-dB safety zones. Under conditions of low or poor visibility, the measures mentioned in previous responses will be required. Additionally, night vision devices will be available on all source vessels. Surveys will not extend into September, so there would be no need for additional monitoring efforts. *Comment 32:* The NSB is concerned that if the seismic surveys do occur in September, bowhead whales have a much greater chance of being exposed to seismic sounds, and BPXA must increase its proposed monitoring program. The NSB and NSB DWM state that aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring programs will be needed if BPXA resumes its seismic surveys in September. The increased monitoring should include:
(1)Aerial surveys at least 3 times per week, both inshore and offshore of the barrier islands;
(2)enhanced acoustic monitoring, especially in areas offshore of the barrier islands; and
(3)increased MMO coverage. Without additional monitoring plans for September and October, the NSB opposes an IHA that permits seismic activity during that time period. The NSB DWM notes that it is not clear where BPXA will deploy acoustic recorders. Further information is needed. If seismic surveys are to extend into September, hydrophones should at least be deployed to the west and east of McClure Islands and shoreward of the barrier islands. The NSB DWM also believes that MMOs should be deployed to vessels other than the source vessels if surveys continue into the fall migration period to help avoid Level A takes and to provide information about how many marine mammals may be affected in the disturbance zones (i.e., 120- and 160-dB zones). *Response:* As stated previously in this **Federal Register** notice, BPXA has stated that it no longer plans to conduct seismic data acquisition in September and October. *Comment 33:* The NVPH notes that NMFS regulations require that an IHA set forth “requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” (50 CFR 216.107(a)(3)). The proposed IHA fails to provide for peer review of BPXA's proposed monitoring plans. It states only that BPXA participated in the “open water meeting” in Anchorage in April. This does not suffice to meet the independent peer review requirement for BPXA's monitoring plans. Such peer review, by independent, objective reviewers is both necessary and required. *Response:* In order for the independent peer-review of Arctic area activity monitoring plans, it must be conducted in an open and timely process. Review by an independent organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences, would be costly (at least $500,000), take at least a year to complete, would limit NMFS, FWS, MMS, and stakeholder input, would likely provide for an inflexible, multi-year monitoring plan (e.g., any modifications may require reconvening the Committee), and may not address issues of mutual concern (degree of bowhead westward migration, etc.). As a result, NMFS believes that independent peer-review of monitoring plans can be conducted via two means. First, the monitoring plans are made public and available for review by scientists and members of the public in addition to scientists from the NSB, NMFS, and the USFWS. In accordance with the MMPA, the MMC's Committee of Scientific Advisors reviews all IHA applications, including the monitoring plans. Second, monitoring plans and the results of previous monitoring are reviewed once or twice annually at public meetings held with the industry, the AEWC, the NSB, Federal agencies, and the public. BPXA's mitigation and monitoring plan was reviewed by scientists and stakeholders at a meeting in Anchorage between April 14, 2008, and April 16, 2008, and by the public between May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24236) and June 2, 2008. Cumulative Impact Concerns *Comment 34:* Oceana and the Ocean Conservancy are concerned that oil and gas activities may have substantial negative effects on marine mammals and other Arctic species. Oceana and the Ocean Conservancy further state that there has never been a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of seismic activities in the Arctic. Oceana and the Ocean Conservancy request that in light of the dramatic effects of climate change in the Arctic, NMFS must not approve further seismic activities without such a comprehensive evaluation. *Response:* While it is possible that substantial negative effects on marine mammals and other Arctic species could occur from oil and gas activities, NMFS believes that proactive conservation measures for protected species, such as NMFS' initiation of status reviews of ice seals and the recent USFWS ESA-listing of polar bears, coupled with prudent natural resources management and regulations on industrial activities by Federal agencies would reduce these adverse impacts to biologically non-significant or negligible levels. In addition, monitoring and mitigation measures required for conducting particular industrial activities would further reduce and minimize such negative effects to marine mammal species and stocks. Long term research and monitoring results on ice seals in Alaska's North Slope have shown that effects of oil and gas development on local distribution of seals and seal lairs are no more than slight and are small relative to the effects of natural environmental factors (Moulton *et al.* , 2005; Williams *et al.* , 2006). NMFS does not agree with Oceana's and Ocean Conservancy's statement that there has never been a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of seismic activities in the Arctic. The MMS 2006 PEA, NMFS 2007 SEA, 2007 MMS/NMFS DPEIS, and NMFS 2008 SEA for the proposed issuance of IHAs for five seismic survey and shallow hazard and site clearance survey activities for the 2008 open water season all provide comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of seismic activities in the Arctic. In issuing the IHA to BPXA for its proposed OBC seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, NMFS has conducted extensive environmental reviews. *Comment 35:* The MMC recommends that NMFS, together with the applicant and other appropriate agencies and organizations, develop a broad-based population monitoring and impact assessment program to ensure that these activities, in combination with other risk factors, are not individually or cumulatively having any significant adverse population-level effects on marine mammals or having an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Such a monitoring program should focus initially on the need to collect adequate baseline information to allow for future analyses of effects. As the MMC has noted in previous letters to NMFS, the NRC
(2003)report *Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope* states that the predicted rate of climate change in the Beaufort Sea region may, at some point, have more than a negligible impact on marine mammal populations, particularly when combined with the effects of oil and gas operations and other human activities that are likely to be initiated or to increase in Arctic regions. The MMC therefore questions whether there is sufficient basis for concluding that the cumulative effects of the proposed activities, coupled with past, ongoing, and planned activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, will be negligible for bowhead whales and other marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability to Alaska Natives for subsistence use. *Response:* The report *Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope* (Report) released by the National Academy of Science lists industrial noise and oil spills as major impacts to marine mammals from oil and gas development. So far, the prevalent human induced mortalities on marine mammals (bowhead whales, seals, and polar bears) in this region are from subsistence hunting. The Report further predicts that “if climate warming and substantial oil spills did not occur, cumulative effects on ringed seals and polar bears in the next 25 years would likely be minor and not accumulate”. In its findings, the Report concludes that “industrial activity in marine waters of the Beaufort Sea has been limited and sporadic and likely has not caused serious accumulating effects on ringed seals or polar bears"; and “careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects of North Slope oil and gas development and their accumulation, especially if there is no major oil spill”. The proposed activity would have no potential for an oil spill. It is also highly unlikely given the mitigation and monitoring measures required in the IHA and the distribution of marine mammals during the survey activity period that injury or mortality of marine mammals would occur as a result of BPXA's seismic survey. A description of the monitoring program submitted by BPXA was provided in BPXA's application, outlined in the **Federal Register** notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008), and posted on the NMFS PR IHA webpage. As a result of a dialogue on monitoring by scientists and stakeholders attending NMFS' public meetings in Anchorage in April, 2006, October, 2006, and April, 2007, the industry has expanded its monitoring program in order to fulfill its responsibilities under the MMPA. For the third year, industry participants have included a marine mammal research component designed to provide baseline data on marine mammals for future operations planning. A description of this research is provided later in this document (see “Joint Industry Program” section). Scientists are continuing discussions to ensure that the research effort obtains the best scientific information possible. Finally, it should be noted that this far-field monitoring program follows the guidance of the MMC's recommended approach for monitoring seismic activities in the Arctic (Hofman and Swartz, 1991), that additional research might be warranted when impacts to marine mammals would not be detectable as a result of vessel observation programs. Additionally, although not required as part of the IHA issued by NMFS to BPXA, at the request of the NSB, BPXA has agreed to conduct three fish related studies in the proposed project area. First, BPXA will conduct a literature review on the effects of airgun sounds on fish and lower-level animals, including larval fish and invertebrates. Secondly, BPXA will sample behind the operation seismic airgun survey vessels to gather qualitative data on fish mortality. Lastly, BPXA has agreed to analyze catch-per-unit-effort data from fyke net in the Endicott area to look for a “seismic effect.” These studies will aid in collecting baseline ecosystem data in Foggy Island Bay. ESA Concerns *Comment 36:* CBD states that the proposed IHA will affect, at a minimum, three endangered species, the bowhead and humpback whales and the polar bear. As a consequence, NMFS must engage in consultation under Section 7 of the ESA prior to issuing the IHA. Previous recent biological opinions for industrial activities in the Arctic (e.g., the 2006 Arctic Regional Biological Opinion (ARBO)) have suffered from inadequate descriptions of the proposed action, inadequate descriptions of the status of the species, inadequate descriptions of the environmental baseline, inadequate descriptions of the effects of the action, inadequate analysis of cumulative effects, and inadequate descriptions and analysis of proposed mitigation. We hope NMFS performs the full analysis required by law and avoids these problems in its consultation for the proposed IHA. *Response:* Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultation with the MMS on the issuance of seismic permits for offshore oil and gas activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. In a Biological Opinion issued on June 16, 2006, NMFS concluded that the issuance of seismic survey permits by MMS and the issuance of the associated IHAs for seismic surveys are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species (specifically the bowhead whale) under the jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat. The 2006 Biological Opinion takes into consideration all oil and gas related activities that are reasonably likely to occur, including exploratory (but not production) oil drilling activities. NMFS has indicated that the findings in the 2006 ARBO are still relevant to BPXA's 2008 open water seismic survey planned for the Liberty Prospect, Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea. MMS and NMFS are conducting a section 7 consultation for 2008 activities in the Chukchi Sea only, as there is evidence that humpback and fin whales may be affected by seismic surveys in 2008. However, since these species are not likely to occur in BPXA's project area, reinitiation of consultation for this particular IHA is not warranted. In addition, NMFS has issued an Incidental Take Statement under this Biological Opinion which contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to minimize the effects of take of bowhead whales. Regarding the polar bear, MMS has contacted the USFWS about conducting a section 7 consultation. *Comment 37:* Additionally, CBD states, NMFS may authorize incidental take of the listed marine mammals under the ESA pursuant to Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, but only where such take occurs while “carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.” To be “lawful,” such activities must “meet all State and Federal legal requirements except for the prohibition against taking in section 9 of the ESA”. As discussed above, BPXA's proposed activities violate the MMPA and NEPA and therefore are “not otherwise lawful.” Any take authorization for listed marine mammals would, therefore, violate the ESA, as well as these other statutes. *Response:* As noted in this document, NMFS has made the necessary determinations under the MMPA, the ESA, and NEPA regarding the incidental harassment of marine mammals by BPXA while it is conducting activities permitted legally under MMS' jurisdiction. NEPA Concerns *Comment 38:* The NSB, NVPH, and CBD state that NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare an EIS for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” In the notice of proposed IHA, NMFS cites the 2006 PEA and the 2007 DPEIS. As explained in our comment letters on these two documents (incorporated by reference), neither of these documents satisfy NMFS' NEPA obligation. The 2006 PEA explicitly limited its scope to the 2006 seismic season. Additional seismic work cannot be authorized without further NEPA analysis of the cumulative impacts of increasing activity offshore in the Arctic Ocean. The monitoring reports from 2006 and 2007 seismic testing must be considered in any NEPA analysis for further seismic testing. Moreover, these reports indicate that the 120 dB and 160 dB zones from seismic surveys were much larger than anticipated or analyzed in the PEA. As such, the analysis of the PEA is simply inaccurate and underestimates the actual impacts from seismic activities. Also, in 2007, significant bowhead feeding activity occurred in Camden Bay, rendering the PEA's analyses of important bowhead feeding areas inadequate and inaccurate. Additionally, sea ice in 2007 retreated far beyond that predicted or analyzed in the PEA, rendering any discussion of cumulative impacts of seismic activities in the context of climate change horribly out of date. Moreover, even if the EA was not of limited scope and out of date, the proposed surveys threaten potentially significant impacts to the environment, and must be considered in a full EIS. (See 42 U.S.C. 5 4332(2)(c); *Idaho Sporting Cong* v. *Thomas* , 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998)). “[A]n EIS must be prepared if “substantial questions are raised as to whether a project . . . may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor” *Idaho Sporting Cong.* , 137 F.3d at 1149). As explained in our comment letter of May 10, 2006, on the PEA (incorporated by reference), seismic surveys trigger several of the significance criteria enumerated in NEPA regulations. Additionally, the “significance thresholds” in the PEA are, as explained in our comment letters, arbitrary and unlawful. Moreover, the 120 dB and 160 dB safety zones that NMFS relied upon to avoid a finding of significance in the 2006 PEA are not part of the current proposal and cannot in anyway support a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Finally, where, as here, a proposed action may have cumulatively significant impacts, an EIS must be prepared, and cannot be avoided by breaking a program down into multiple actions. See *Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project* v. *Blackwood* , 161 F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998); *Kern* v. *Bureau of Land Mgmt.* , 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002). *Response:* NMFS prepared a Final SEA to analyze further the effects of BPXA's (and other companies') proposed open-water seismic survey activities for the 2008 season. NMFS has incorporated by reference the analyses contained in the MMS 2006 Final PEA and has also relied in part on analyses contained in the DPEIS submitted for public comment on March 30, 2007. The 2006 PEA analyzed a broad scope of proposed seismic activities in the Arctic Ocean. In fact, the PEA assessed the effects of multiple, ongoing seismic surveys (up to 8 surveys) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for the 2006 season. Although BPXA's proposed activity for this season was not explicitly identified in the 2006 PEA, the PEA did contemplate that future seismic activity, such as BPXA's, could occur. NMFS believes the range of alternatives and environmental effects considered in the 2006 PEA, combined with NMFS' SEA for the 2008 season are sufficient to meet the agency's NEPA responsibilities. In addition, the 2008 SEA includes new information obtained since the 2006 Final PEA was issued, including updated information on cumulative impacts. NMFS also includes a new section in the 2008 SEA, which provides a review of the 2006 and 2007 monitoring reports. As a result of this review and analysis, NMFS has determined that it was not necessary to prepare an EIS for the issuance of an IHA to BPXA in 2008 for seismic activity in the Beaufort Sea but that preparation of an SEA and issuance of a FONSI were sufficient under NEPA. NMFS has determined that it is not necessary for BPXA to monitor a 120-dB safety radius, as stated in several of the preceding responses. BPXA will establish a 160-dB safety radius to monitor for Level B harassment exposures; however, no serious injury or mortality is expected of any marine mammal species that enters this radius. Because BPXA will be conducting its activities in shallow water, inshore of the barrier islands, sound is not expected to propagate as far as it would outside the islands. The islands are also expected to absorb the majority of the sound produced by the airguns. *Comment 39:* The NSB and CBD state that NMFS also appears to rely on the NEPA analysis in the DPEIS in clear violation of NEPA law. NEPA requires agencies to prepare a draft EIS, consider public and other agency comments, respond to these comments in its final EIS, and wait 60 days before issuing a final decision. Before the record of decision has been issued on the final PEIS, NMFS cannot authorize BPXA's proposed seismic surveys. Here, the very purpose of the PEIS process is to consider seismic surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas for the years 2008 and beyond. NMFS cannot authorize such activities before the NEPA process is complete. See *Metcalf* v. *Daley* , 214 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (9th Cir. 2000). In sum, NMFS seems to either be relying on a NEPA document that is not just inadequate, but which by its very terms only covers activities from two years ago (the 2006 PEA), or one which is nowhere near complete (the 2007 DPEIS). Neither of these is sufficient to meet NMFS' NEPA obligations under the law. The NSB believes that NMFS may not avoid the requirements of NEPA by only completing a SEA this season. *Response:* See previous responses on this concern. Contrary to the NSB's and CBD's statement, NMFS relied on information contained in the MMS 2006 Final PEA, as updated by NMFS' 2008 SEA for making its determinations under NEPA and that the DPEIS was not the underlying document to support NMFS' issuance of BPXA's IHA. NMFS merely relied upon specific pieces of information and analyses contained in the DPEIS to assist in preparing the SEA. It is NMFS' intention that the PEIS currently being developed will be used to support, in whole, or in part, future MMPA actions relating to oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, NMFS believes that a SEA is the appropriate NEPA analysis for this season as the amount of activity for 2008 is less than what was analyzed in the 2006 PEA. *Comment 40:* The NVPH states that because NMFS has not yet made a copy of its SEA available to the public, it is impossible to comment fully on the agency's NEPA analysis of BPXA's shallow hazard surveys. Nevertheless, we hereby incorporate by reference in their entirety the following comments that identify the flaws with the analysis provided in the PEA and explain why it is inappropriate for NMFS to continue to rely on that document:
(i)our comments on NMFS proposed IHA for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Energy Services (AES), submitted on May 28, 2008;
(ii)our comment on the 2006 PEA, submitted on May 24, 2006; and
(iii)the comments submitted to NMFS by the NRDC on May 10, 2006. As these comments recount, the analysis in the PEA understates the risk of significant impacts to bowhead whales and all marine mammals, fails to provide site-specific analysis, fails to evaluate activities beyond 2006, and uses arbitrary significance criteria for non-endangered marine mammals, among many other failures. *Response:* The NVPH alleges that NMFS violated NEPA's standards when it failed to circulate the draft SEA for public comment prior to finalizing the SEA. Neither NEPA, nor the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations explicitly require circulation of a draft EA for public comment prior to finalizing the EA. The Federal courts have upheld this conclusion, and in one recent case, the Ninth Circuit squarely addressed the question of public involvement in the development of an EA. In *Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development* v. *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* (9th Cir., 2008), the court held that the circulation of a draft EA is not required in every case; rather, Federal agencies should strive to involve the public in the decision-making process by providing as much environmental information as is practicable prior to completion of the EA so that the public has a sufficient opportunity to weigh in on issues pertinent to the agency's decision-making process. In the case of BPXA's MMPA IHA request, NMFS involved the public in the decision-making process by distributing BPXA's IHA application for a 30-day notice and comment period. The IHA application and NMFS' **Federal Register** notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008) contained information relating to the project. For example, the application includes a project description, its location, environmental matters such as species and habitat to be affected by project construction, and measures designed to minimize adverse impacts to the environment and the availability of affected species or stocks for subsistence uses. As documented herein, NMFS considered all of the public comments received on the IHA application, in particular issues related to the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses and means for effecting the least practicable impact on the availability of marine mammal populations for subsistence uses and addressed many of the public's environmental concerns in the final SEA. NMFS also incorporated, where appropriate, measures to reduce impacts to marine mammals resulting from the surveys. As NMFS stated earlier, the final SEA will be made available to the public upon its completion. NMFS responded to comments submitted regarding the 2006 PEA in Appendix D of that document and will not repeat those comments and responses here. The comments submitted by the NVPH for the AES proposed IHA regarding NEPA issues are addressed in comments 41-43 in this document. *Comment 41:* The NVPH believes that the analysis in the PEA understates the risk of significant impacts to bowhead whales and all marine mammals. It assumes the source vessels-both 3D seismic and shallow hazard vessels-will ensonify much smaller zones than those which have been subsequently measured in the field. In practice, seismic airgun noise has propagated far greater distances than NMFS anticipated in the PEA and thus authorized activity presumably has displaced marine mammals from far more habitat, including important feeding and resting habitats, than NMFS' analysis in the PEA anticipated. See, e.g., PEA Figures III.F-10 and III.F-11 (assuming 20 km avoidance of surveys by bowhead whales). Based on the propagation actually measured in 2006 and 2007, the impacts of a single 3D seismic survey are two to three times as large as NMFS anticipated or more. The impacts of a single shallow hazard survey are comparable to the impacts NMFS anticipated from a single 2D or 3D seismic survey. Before authorizing further seismic surveying activity or shallow hazard surveys in the Arctic Ocean, NMFS must complete the PEIS that it began in 2006 to evaluate the potentially significant impacts of such activities. *Response:* The subject PEA was written by MMS, not NMFS. However, NMFS was a cooperating agency under NEPA in its preparation. As noted in your cited part in the PEA, 20 km (12.4 mi) was used for illustrative purposes in an exercise to estimate the impact of four seismic vessels operating within 24 km (15 mi) of each other. To do so, MMS created a box (that was moveable along the Beaufort Sea coast) to make these estimates. NMFS believes that the use of 20 km (12.4 mi) remains the best information available at this time and was the radius agreed to by participants at the 2001 Arctic Open-water Noise Peer Review Workshop in Seattle, Washington. This estimate is based on the results from the 1998 aerial survey (as supplemented by data from earlier years) as reported in Miller *et al.* (1999). In 1998, bowhead whales below the water surface at a distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an airgun array received pulses of about 117-135 dB re 1 Pa rms, depending upon propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) were about 107-126 dB re 1 μ Pa rms. Miller *et al.*
(1999)surmise that deflection may have begun about 35 km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic operations, but did not provide SPL measurements to that distance, and noted that sound propagation has not been studied as extensively eastward in the alongshore direction, as it has northward, in the offshore direction. Therefore, while this single year of data analysis indicates that bowhead whales may make minor deflections in swimming direction at a distance of 30-35 km (18.6-21.7 mi), there is no indication that the SPL where deflection first begins is at 120 dB, it could be at another SPL lower or higher than 120 dB. Miller *et al.*
(1999)also note that the received levels at 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) were considerably lower in 1998 than have previously been shown to elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to seismic pulses. However, the seismic airgun array used in 1998 was larger than the ones used in 1996 and 1997. Therefore, NMFS believes that it cannot scientifically support adopting any single SPL value below 160 dB and apply it across the board for all species and in all circumstances. For this reason, until more data collection and analyses are conducted on impacts of anthropogenic noise (principally from seismic) on marine mammals in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, NMFS will continue to use 20 km (12.4 mi) as the radius for estimating impacts on bowhead whales during the fall migration period. In regards to the NVPH statement, “The impacts of a single shallow hazard survey are comparable to the impacts NMFS anticipated from a single 2D or 3D seismic survey,” NMFS notes that BPXA's seismic program is not a shallow hazards survey but a 3D seismic survey conducted in shallow water, inside the barrier islands. This OBC survey is similar to those conducted for BPXA by Western Geophysical in the late 1990s at the nearby Northstar Prospect (see Richardson, W.J.
(ed)1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a, and 2000b for acoustic measurements and marine mammal impact assessments from OBC surveys during 1996 through 2000, respectively). As a result of these previous acoustic propagation measurements, NMFS believes that the sound propagation characteristics for the 880 in 3 airgun array proposed by BPXA for its 2008 OBC survey at the Liberty Prospect, has been accurately calculated for the 190 dB, 180 dB and 160 dB
(rms)zones, as shown in Table 3 of BPXA's IHA application and Table 1 below. Also, it should be recognized that since BPXA will not be operating after August 25 (prior to the start of the bowhead whale westward migration), “exposure” estimates to the 120-dB isopleth are unnecessary, as no animals are presumed to be affected to that distance. In addition, in compliance with the terms and conditions of its IHA, BPXA will conduct a sound source verification test prior to conducting its OBC survey to ensure that the correct distances are applied to the safety and monitoring zones (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this document). *Comment 42:* The NVPH states that the PEA fails to provide site-specific analysis. Thus, in order to reduce the likelihood of significant impacts, NMFS has imposed 160-dB and 120-dB safety zones when authorizing surveys pursuant to the PEA. At a minimum, it must do the same for BPXA's surveys but with the modifications to the safety zones discussed above. *Response:* The SEA prepared for the 2008 open-water season activities provides site specific information for the various projects, in particular BPXA's project. NMFS has determined that it is unnecessary to impose 160-dB and 120-dB safety zones on BPXA since their activities will cease prior to such zones being required in the Beaufort Sea. The 160-dB zone is for large aggregations of bowhead whales. Since the majority of the stock will be in the Canadian Beaufort during BPXA's activities, NMFS has determined that this measure is not necessary. Additionally, NMFS has determined that BPXA does not need to monitor a 120-dB shutdown zone since this is only necessary when 4 or more cow/calf pairs are sighted. Since the animals are not normally located in the part of the Beaufort Sea where BPXA will be conducting its survey in July and August and the shallow water depths (which are not considered suitable bowhead habitat), it is highly unlikely that 4 or more cow/calf pairs will be sighted during BPXA's activity. *Comment 43:* The scope of the PEA is explicitly limited to activities that occur during 2006. Those seismic survey activities have already occurred, as well as an additional season worth of activities in 2007. The PEA does not evaluate activities that will occur over a period of several years, though NMFS has continued to rely on it as if its scope were for a multi-year program of seismic surveys. In addition, the PEA uses arbitrary significance criteria for non-endangered marine mammals that would allow long-lasting impacts to populations, or in fact the entire Arctic ecosystem, that would nonetheless be deemed insignificant. These significance criteria are inappropriate for an evaluation of impacts from seismic surveys, as indicated by MMS' use of more defensible significance criteria based on potential biological removal form marine mammal populations affected by seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. *Response:* The NMFS has prepared and released to the public, a SEA for seismic surveys that are expected to occur in 2008 (see ADDRESSES for availability). This SEA incorporates by reference the relevant information contained in the 2006 PEA and updates that information where necessary to assess impacts on the marine environment from the 2008 seismic survey activities. NMFS believes that it is fully compliant with the requirements of NEPA in its preparation of its NEPA documents. Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, including bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, fin, and humpback whales, harbor porpoises, ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, polar bears, and walruses. These latter two species are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are not discussed further in this document. A separate LOA was issued to BPXA by the USFWS specific to walruses and polar bears. A total of three cetacean species and four pinniped species are known to occur or may occur in the Beaufort Sea in or near the Liberty area (see Table 1 in BPXA's application for information on habitat and abundance). Of these species, only the bowhead whale is listed as endangered under the ESA. The narwhal, killer whale, harbor porpoise, minke whale, fin whale, and humpback whale could occur in the Beaufort Sea, but each of these species is rare or extralimital and unlikely to be encountered in the Liberty area. The marine mammal species expected to be encountered most frequently throughout the seismic survey in the Liberty area is the ringed seal. The bearded and spotted seal can also be observed but to a far lesser extent than the ringed seal. Presence of beluga, bowhead, and gray whales in the shallow water environment within the barrier islands is possible but expected to be very limited because bowhead and beluga whales are mostly found farther east in the Mackenzie Delta, Camden Bay, and other parts of the Canadian Beaufort Sea in July and August. Also, during this time, gray whales are mostly found in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas and are rarely seen in the project area. Descriptions of the biology, distribution, and population status of the marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction can be found in BPXA's application, the 2007 NMFS/MMS DPEIS, and the NMFS SARs. The Alaska SAR is available at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2007.pdf* . Please refer to those documents for information on these species. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non-auditory effects (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson *et al.* , 1995):
(1)The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
(2)The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;
(3)The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases;
(4)Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, infrequent, and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
(5)Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce
(mask)the ability of a marine mammal to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6)If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, breeding, or some other biologically important purpose even though there is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and
(7)Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any TTS in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage. The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment and other physical effects, and non-auditory physiological effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix C of BPXA's application. The notice of proposed IHA also included a discussion of the effects of pinger signals on marine mammals. Because of the low power output and the weaker signals produced by the pingers than by the airguns, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to pinger signals at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Estimated Take of Marine Mammals by Incidental Harassment The anticipated harassments from the activities described above may involve temporary changes in behavior. There is no evidence that the planned activities could result in serious injury or mortality, for example due to collisions with vessels, strandings, or from sound levels high enough to result in PTS. Disturbance reactions, such as avoidance, are very likely to occur among marine mammals in the vicinity of the source vessel. The mitigation and monitoring measures proposed to be implemented (see below) during this survey are based on Level B harassment criteria and will minimize the potential for serious injury or mortality. The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008) included an in-depth discussion of the methodology used by BPXA to estimate incidental take by harassment by seismic and the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected in the seismic acquisition activity area in the Beaufort Sea. Additional information was included in BPXA's application. A summary is provided here. The density estimates for the species covered under this proposed IHA are based on the estimates by Moore *et al.* (2000b) for beluga whales, Miller *et al.*
(2002)for bowhead whales, and Moulton *et al.*
(2003)and Frost *et al.*
(2003)for ringed seals. The estimates for the number of marine mammals that might be affected during the proposed OBC seismic survey in the Liberty area are based on expected marine mammal density and anticipated area ensonified by levels of greater than 170 and 160 dB re 1 μPa. In its application, BPXA provides estimates of the number of potential “exposures” to sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)and greater than 170 dB. BPXA states that while the 160-dB criterion applies to all species of cetaceans and pinnipeds, BPXA believes that a 170-dB criterion should be considered appropriate for delphinids and pinnipeds, which tend to be less responsive, whereas the 160-dB criterion is considered appropriate for other cetaceans (LGL, 2007). However, NMFS has noted in the past that it is current policy to estimate Level B harassment takes based on the 160-dB criterion for all species. Expected density of marine mammals in the survey area of operation and area of influence are based on best available data. Density data derived from studies conducted in or near the proposed survey area are used for calculations, where available. When estimates were derived from data collected in regions, habitats, or seasons that differ from the proposed seismic survey, adjustments to reported population or density estimates were made to account for these differences insofar as possible (see Section 6.1 of BPXA's application). The anticipated area to be ensonified by levels of greater than 160 dB re 1 Pa is a combination of the area covered by the approximately 3,219 km (2,000 mi) survey lines and the estimated safety radii. The close spacing of neighboring vessel tracklines within the planned seismic survey area results in a limited area exposed to sounds of 160 dB or greater, while much of that area is exposed repeatedly. Marine Mammal Density Estimates The duration of the seismic data acquisition in the Liberty area is estimated to be approximately 40 days, based on a continuous 24-hr operation. Therefore, the nearshore marine mammal densities for the summer period have been applied to 95 percent of the total trackline kilometers. The fall densities have been applied to the remaining 5 percent. Most marine mammals in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea are migratory, occupying different habitats and/or locations during the year. The densities can therefore vary greatly within seasons and for different locations. For the purpose of this IHA request, different densities have been derived for the summer (late July through August) and the fall (September through early October). In addition to seasonal variation in densities, spatial differentiation is also an important factor for marine mammal densities, both in latitudinal and longitudinal gradient. Taking into account the size and location of the proposed seismic survey area and the associated area of influence, only the nearshore zone (defined as the area between the shoreline and the 50 m, 164 ft, line of bathymetry) in the western part of the Beaufort Sea (defined as the area west of 141° W.) is relevant for the density calculations. If the best available density data cover other zones than the nearshore zone or areas outside the western part of the Beaufort Sea, densities were derived based on expert judgment. Because the available density data are not always representative for the area of interest, and correction factors were not always known, there is some uncertainty in the data and assumptions used in the density calculations. To provide allowance for these uncertainties, maximum estimates of the numbers potentially affected have been provided in addition to average densities, although NMFS relies on the average density estimate to derive potential exposure estimates. The marine mammal densities presented are believed to be close to, and in most cases, higher than the densities that are expected to be encountered during the survey. Cetaceans The densities of beluga and bowhead whales present in the Beaufort Sea are expected to vary by season and location. During the early and mid-summer, most belugas and bowheads are found in the Canadian Beaufort Sea or adjacent areas. During fall, both species migrate through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, sometimes interrupting their migration to feed. However, since survey activity will cease prior to the fall migration period, few cetaceans are expected to be taken. Additional species specific information for both bowhead and belugas was contained in the notice of proposed IHA. Pinnipeds Pinnipeds in the polar regions are mostly associated with sea ice and most census methods count pinnipeds when they are hauled out on the ice, not in open-water where seismic surveys are conducted. Consequently, the density and potential take (exposure) numbers for seals in the Beaufort Sea will likely overestimate the number of seals that would likely be encountered and/or exposed to seismic airguns because only animals in the water near the survey area would be exposed to the seismic activity sound sources. Because seals would be more widely dispersed at this time of the year, animal densities would be less than when seals are concentrated on and near the ice. However, to account for the proportion of animals present but not hauled out (availability bias) or seals present on the ice but missed (detection bias), a correction factor should be applied to the “raw” counts. This correction factor is very dependent on the behavior of each species. To estimate the proportion of ringed seals visible resting on the ice surface, radio tags were placed on seals during the spring months during 1999-2003 (Kelly *et al.* , 2006). Applying the probability that seals were visible to the data from past aerial surveys indicated that the fraction of seals visible varied from less than 0.4 to more than 0.75 between survey years. The environmental factors that are important in explaining the availability of seals to be counted were found to be time of day, date, wind speed, air temperature, and days from snow melt (Kelly *et al.* , 2006). No correction factors have been applied to the seal densities reported here. The seismic activities covered by the present IHA request will occur during the open water season. Seal density during this period is generally lower than during spring when animals are hauled out on the ice. No distinction is made in density of pinnipeds between summer and autumn season. Additional species specific information for ringed, bearded, and spotted seals was contained in the proposed IHA notice. Exposure Calculations for Marine Mammals Impacts on marine mammals from the planned seismic survey focus on the sound sources of the seismic airguns. A complete description of the methodology used to estimate the safety radii for received levels of 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa for pulsed sounds emitted by the airgun array with a total discharge volume of 880 in 3 and the assumptions underlying these calculations were provided in the proposed IHA notice and BPXA's application (more specifications of this airgun array are included in Appendix B of BPXA's application). A summary is provided here. The distance to reach received sound levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)will be used to calculate the potential numbers of marine mammals that may be exposed to these sound levels. The distances to received levels of 180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)are mainly relevant as safety radii for mitigation purposes (see below). Table 3 in BPXA's application and Table 1 here outline the estimated distances for specified received levels from airgun arrays with total discharge volumes of 440 in 3 and 880 in 3 in both 1 and 4 m (3.3 and 13 ft) of water. The estimated distances are based on transmission loss profiles within the barrier islands. It is expected that these islands will function as a sound barrier beyond which sound will not propagate much, although most propagation is expected through the channels between the islands. Therefore, the estimated distances for 120 dB and maybe 160 dB (especially for the source lines closest to the islands) may be overestimations. Table 1. Estimated distances for specified received levels from airgun arrays with a total discharge volume of 440 in 3 and 880 in 3 . Note that the array depth is an important factor for sound propagation loss. Received levels (dB re 1 μPa rms) a Distance in meters b (array depth 1 m) 440 in 3 880 in 3 Distance in meters b (array depth 4 m) 440 in 3 880 in 3 190 120 235 200 390 180 280 545 462 880 170 640 1,190 1,030 1,830 160 1,380 2,380 2,090 3,430 120 10,800 13,700 12,900 16,000 a The distance in meters for each received level was calculated using the radius calculator available to the public at www.greeneridge.com (courtesy of W.C. Burgess, Ph.D.) b Received levels of airgun sounds are expressed in dB re 1 μPa (rms, averaged over pulse duration). The distances from the source to specific received sound levels as summarized in Table 3 of the application and Table 1 above are estimates used for the purpose of this IHA request. These estimated distances will be verified with field measurements at the start of the survey. The radii associated with received sound levels of 160 and/or 170 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)or higher are used to calculate the number of potential marine mammal “exposures” to sounds that have the potential to impact their behavior. The 160-dB criterion is applied for all species, and for pinnipeds additional calculations were made for the 170-dB criterion. The potential number of each species that might be exposed to received levels of 160 and 170 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)or greater is calculated by multiplying: • The expected species density as provided in Table 2 of BPXA's application; by • The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun operations. The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the seismic survey lines into a MapInfo Geographic Information System (GIS). GIS was then used to identify the relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer from Table 3 in the application or Table 1 above around each seismic source line and then to calculate the total area within the buffers. This method avoids the large overlap of buffer zones from each seismic source line and hence an overestimation of the potential number of marine mammals exposed. The following table indicates the authorized take levels for each species, as well as the estimated percent of the population that these numbers constitute. Only small numbers of all species are expected to be taken by harassment during the proposed OBC seismic survey, with less than 1 percent of the population of each species authorized for take by Level B (behavioral) harassment. Table 2. Summary of the number of marine mammals potentially exposed to received sound levels of ≥160 dB and ≥170 dB (for pinnipeds only) during BPXA's seismic survey in the Liberty area, based on radii for 880 in 3 array and 4 m (13 ft) array depth. Species Exposures to ≥160 dB Average Maximum Exposures to ≥170 dB Average Maximum Estimated % of population * Cetaceans Beluga Whale 1 6 NA NA 0.003 Bowhead Whale 2 12 NA NA 0.02 Pinnipeds Ringed Seal 156 222 141 201 0.06 Bearded Seal 11 16 10 14 0.004 Spotted Seal 2 2 1 2 0.003 * The percentage is based on the average number of animals potentially exposed to 160 dB or greater. Conclusions Impacts of seismic sounds on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. The authorized harassment for each species is based on the estimated average numbers exposed to 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)or greater from an airgun array operating at 4 m (13 ft) depth. The estimated numbers of cetaceans and pinnipeds potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause behavioral disturbance are very low percentages of the regional stock or population size in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas. For the bowhead whale, a species listed as endangered under the ESA, BPXA's estimates include approximately 2 bowheads. This is approximately 0.02 percent of the estimated 2008 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population of 13,330 (based on a population size of 10,545 in 2001 and an annual population growth of 3.4 percent, cf Table 1 in the application). Although the best available data suggest that beluga whales are not likely to be present in or near the Liberty area, it is possible that some individuals might be observed. Belugas also show aggregate behavior, and so there is the unlikely event that if belugas appear in this area it might be in a larger group. Even so, this larger number still constitutes a very low percentage of the estimated regional stock or population size (see Table 6 in the application). The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans of seismic operations, vessel traffic, and some other human activities show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation measures such as controlled speed, look outs, non-pursuit, shutdowns or power-downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges, and avoiding migration pathways when animals are likely most sensitive to noise will further reduce short-term reactions, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. Additionally, the fact that BPXA does not intend to conduct any activities during or after the fall migration period further reduces the potential for effects to cetaceans. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence. Subsistence issues are addressed below. From the few pinniped species likely to be encountered in the study area, the ringed seal is by far the most abundant marine mammal that could be encountered. The estimated number of ringed seals potentially exposed to airgun sounds at received levels of 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)during the seismic survey represent 0.06 percent of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock, and these are even smaller portions for bearded and spotted seals (see Table 6 in the application and Table 2 above). It is probable that at this received level, only a small percentage of these seals would actually experience behavioral disturbance, if any at all. The short-term exposures of pinnipeds to airgun sounds are not expected to result in any long-term negative consequences for the individuals or their stocks. Additionally, since these numbers do not take into account that mitigation and monitoring measures will be implemented during the survey (see below), the numbers should in fact be even lower. Potential Impact on Habitat The seismic survey will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals or to the food sources they utilize. The activities will be of short duration in any particular area at any given time; thus any effects would be localized and short-term. The main impact issue associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed above. During the seismic study only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term, and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceases. Thus, the survey would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where seismic work is planned. Some mysticetes, including bowhead whales, feed on concentrations of zooplankton. Some feeding bowhead whales may occur in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in July and August, and others feed intermittently during their westward migration in September and October (Richardson and Thomson [eds.], 2002; Lowry *et al.* , 2004). A reaction by zooplankton to a seismic impulse would only be relevant to whales if it caused concentrations of zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause that type of reaction would probably occur only very close to the source, if any would occur at all. Impacts on zooplankton behavior are predicted to be negligible, and that would translate into negligible impacts on feeding mysticetes. More importantly, bowhead whales are not expected to occur or feed in the shallow area covered by the seismic survey. Thus, the activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. Effects of Seismic Noise and Other Related Activities on Subsistence The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by sounds from seismic activities are the principal concerns related to subsistence use of the area. Subsistence remains the basis for Alaska Native culture and community. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In rural Alaska, subsistence activities are often central to many aspects of human existence, including patterns of family life, artistic expression, and community religious and celebratory activities. The main species that are hunted include bowhead and beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and bearded seals, walruses, and polar bears . The importance of each of these species varies among the communities and is largely based on availability. In the Beaufort Sea, bowhead and beluga whales are the species primarily harvested during the open water season, when the seismic survey is planned. Bowhead whale hunting is the key activity in the subsistence economies of Barrow and two smaller communities, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik. The whale harvests have a great influence on social relations by strengthening the sense of Inupiat culture and heritage in addition to reinforcing family and community ties. Barrow residents focus hunting efforts on bowhead whales during the spring but can also conduct bowhead hunts in the fall. The communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik engage only in the fall bowhead hunt. Few belugas are present or harvested by Nuiqsut or Kaktovik. The Nuiqsut subsistence hunt for bowhead whales has the potential to be impacted by the seismic survey due to its proximity to Cross Island. Around late August, the hunters from Nuiqsut establish camps on Cross Island from where they undertake the fall bowhead whale hunt. The hunting period starts normally in early September and may last as late as mid-October, depending mainly on ice and weather conditions and the success of the hunt. Most of the hunt occurs offshore in waters east, north, and northwest of Cross Island where bowheads migrate and not inside the barrier islands (Galginaitis, 2007). Hunters prefer to take bowheads close to shore to avoid a long tow, but Braund and Moorehead
(1995)report that crews may (rarely) pursue whales as far as 80 km (50 mi) offshore. BPXA's seismic survey will take place within the barrier islands in very shallow water (<10 m, 33 ft). BPXA discussed potential concerns with the affected communities (see “POC” section) throughout the early part of 2008 and recently signed a CAA with the AEWC and affected community whaling captains. One of the agreements reached by the parties to reduce impacts on subsistence was that BPXA will cease all activity by August 25. Ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June. Hunting for these smaller mammals is concentrated during the ice season because of larger availability of seals on the ice. In winter, leads and cracks in the ice off points of land and along the barrier islands are used for hunting ringed seals. Although ringed seals are available year-round, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when these seals are typically harvested. The more limited seal harvest that takes place during the open water season starts around the second week of June. Hunters take boats on routes in the Colville River and much of Harrison Bay. The main seal hunt occurs in areas far west from the Liberty area, so impacts on the subsistence seal hunt are not expected. Potential impacts on subsistence uses of marine mammals will be mitigated by application of the procedures established in the CAA between the seismic operators, the AEWC, and the Captains' Associations of Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Wainwright, Pt. Lay, and Pt. Hope. The CAA curtails the times and locations of seismic and other noise producing sources during times of active bowhead whale scouting and actual whaling activities within the traditional subsistence hunting areas of the potentially affected communities. POC Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes. BPXA negotiated a POC in the form of a CAA with representatives of the communities of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik, the AEWC, and the NSB for the 2008 Liberty seismic survey in Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea. BPXA worked with the people of these communities and organizations to identify and avoid areas of potential conflict. Meetings that have taken place prior to the survey include: • October 25, 2007: Meeting with AEWC and NSB representatives during the AEWC convention; • October 29, 2007: Meeting with NSB Wildlife Group to provide updates of the survey and to obtain information on their opinions and views on mitigation and monitoring requirements. • February 7, 2008: Meeting in Deadhorse with Nuiqsut and Kaktovik whaling captains to provide an introduction to the planned 2008 Liberty seismic survey. • February 28, 2008: First Annual Programmatic CAA Meeting with AEWC commissioners and community representatives from the affected villages in Barrow. • April 2008: As in previous years, BPXA participated in the “open water peer/stakeholder review meeting” convened by NMFS in Anchorage in mid-April 2008, where representatives of the AEWC and NSB also participated. • May 13, 2008: Meeting with the NSB DWM to discuss monitoring plans and project concerns. • June 18, 2008: Two meetings in Nuiqsut to provide a survey overview to the whaling captains and representatives from the community. The CAA covers the phases of BPXA's seismic survey planned to occur in July and August. This plan identifies measures that will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses and to ensure good communication between BPXA (including the seismic team leads), native communities along the coast, and subsistence hunters at sea. It should be noted that NMFS must make a determination under the MMPA that an activity would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence needs for marine mammals. While this includes usage of both cetaceans and pinnipeds, the primary impact by seismic activities is expected to be impacts from noise on bowhead whales during its westward fall feeding and migration period in the Beaufort Sea. NMFS has defined unmitigable adverse impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1)That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
(i)causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas,
(ii)directly displacing subsistence users, or
(iii)placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2)That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met (50 CFR 216.103). Based on the signed CAA, the mitigation and monitoring measures included in the IHA (see next sections), and the project design itself, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from BPXA's activities. Mitigation Measures This section describes the measures that have been included in the survey design and those that are required to be implemented during the survey. Mitigation measures to reduce any potential impact on marine mammals that have been considered and included in the planning and design phase are as follows: • The area for which seismic data is required, i.e., the well path from SDI to the Liberty Prospect, has been minimized by re-analyzing and re- interpreting existing data (to the extent available and usable). This has led to a reduction in size from approximately 220 km 2 (85 mi 2 ) to approximately 91 km 2 (35 mi 2 ). This is not the total seismic area extent that includes the seismic source vessels and receiver lines, although they are related. • The total airgun discharge volume has been reduced to the minimum volume needed to obtain the required data. The total volume for the proposed survey is 880 in 3 (consisting of two 4-gun arrays of 440 in 3 ). • Two seismic source vessels will be used simultaneously (alternating their shots) to minimize the total survey period. This will allow the survey to be completed prior to the start of the whale fall migration and whaling season. The seismic survey will take place inside the barrier islands in nearshore shallow waters. The survey period will be July-August, prior to the bowhead whale migration season. It is unlikely that whales will be present in the nearshore zone where the seismic survey is taking place, and if they are present, the numbers are expected to be low. The main marine mammal species to be expected in the area is the ringed seal. With the required mitigation measures (see below), any effect on individuals is expected to be limited to short-term behavioral disturbance with a negligible impact on the affected species or stock. The mitigation measures are an integral part of the survey in the form of specific procedures, such as:
(1)speed and course alterations;
(2)power-down, ramp up, and shutdown procedures; and
(3)provisions for poor visibility conditions. For the implementation of these measures, it is important to first establish and verify the distances of various received levels that function as safety zones and second to monitor these safety zones and implement mitigation measures where required. Establishment and Monitoring of Safety Zones Greeneridge Sciences, Inc. estimated for BPXA the distances from the 880 in 3 seismic airgun array where sound levels 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 μPa
(rms)would be received (Table 3 in BPXA's application and Table 1 above). For these estimations, the results from transmission loss data obtained in the Liberty area in 1997 were used (Greene, 1998). The calculations included distances for a reduced array of 440 in 3 and two array depths (1 and 4 m, 3 and 13 ft). These calculations form the basis for estimating the number of animals potentially affected. Received sound levels will be measured as a function of distance from the array prior to the start of the survey. This will be done for:
(a)two 440 in 3 arrays (880 in 3 ),
(b)one 440 in 3 array, and
(c)one 70 in 3 airgun (smallest volume of array). BPXA will apply appropriate adjustments to the estimated safety zones (see Table 3 in the application or Table 1 above) based on measurements of the 880 in 3 (two 440 in 3 ) array. Results from measurements of the 440 in 3 and 70 in 3 data will be used for the implementation of mitigation measures to power down the sound source and reduce the size of the safety zones when required. MMOs on board the vessels play a key role in monitoring the safety zones and implementing the mitigation measures. Their primary role is to monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime start-up of the airguns. These observations will provide the real-time data needed to implement the key mitigation measures described below. When marine mammals are observed within or about to enter designated safety zones, airgun operations will be powered down (or shut down if necessary) immediately. These safety zones are defined as the distance from the source to a received level of 190 dB for pinnipeds and 180 dB for cetaceans. A specific dedicated vessel monitoring program to detect aggregations of baleen whales (12 or more) within the 160-dB zone or 4 or more bowhead whale cow-calf pairs within the 120-dB zone is not considered applicable here as none of these situations are expected in the survey based on the estimated safety zones, as well as the time of year that activities will occur. Speed and Course Alterations If a marine mammal (in water) is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be changed in a manner that does not compromise safety requirements. The animal's activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the individual does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or power-down or shutdown of the airgun(s). Power-down Procedure A power-down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radii of the 190-dB and 180-dB zones are decreased to the extent that observed marine mammals are not in the applicable safety zone. Situations that would require a power-down are listed below.
(1)When the vessel is changing from one source line to another, one airgun or a reduced number of airguns is operated. The continued operation of one airgun or a reduced airgun array is intended to:
(a)alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area and
(b)retain the option of initiating a ramp up to full operations under poor visibility conditions.
(2)If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid the animal from entering the safety zone. As an alternative to a complete shutdown, the airguns may be powered- down before the animal is within the safety zone.
(3)If a marine mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns may be powered-down immediately if this is a reasonable alternative to a complete shutdown. This decision will be made by the MMO and can be based on the results obtained from the acoustic measurements for the establishments of safety zones. Following a power-down, operation of the full airgun array will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety zone if it:
(1)Is visually observed to have left the safety zone;
(2)Has not been seen within the zone for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or
(3)Has not been seen within the zone for 30 min in the case of mysticetes (large odontocetes do not occur within the study area). Shutdown Procedure A shutdown procedure involves the complete turn off of all airguns. Ramp-up procedures will be followed during resumption of full seismic operations. The operating airgun(s) will be shut down completely during the following situations:
(1)If a marine mammal approaches or enters the applicable safety zone, and a power- down is not practical or adequate to reduce exposure to less than 190 dB (rms; pinnipeds) or 180 dB (rms; cetaceans).
(2)If a marine mammal approaches or enters the estimated safety radius around the reduced source that will be used during a power-down. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The animal will be considered to have cleared the safety radius as described above for power-down procedures. Ramp-up Procedure A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a specified duration with no or reduced airgun operations. The specified duration depends on the speed of the source vessel, the size of the airgun array that is being used, and the size of the safety zone, but is often about 10 min. NMFS requires that, once ramp-up commences, the rate of ramp-up be no more than 6 dB per 5 min period. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun, in this case, 70 in 3 . BPXA intends to follow the ramp-up guideline of no more than 6 dB per 5 min period. A common procedure is to double the number of operating airguns at 5-min intervals. During the ramp-up, the safety zone for the full 8-gun array will be maintained. A ramp-up procedure can be applied only in the following situations:
(1)If, after a complete shutdown, the entire 180 dB safety zone has been visible for at least 30 min prior to the planned start of the ramp-up in either daylight or nighttime. If the entire safety zone is visible with vessel lights and/or night vision devices, then ramp-up of the airguns from a complete shutdown may occur at night.
(2)If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will either be alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away or may be detected by visual observations.
(3)If no marine mammals have been sighted within or near the applicable safety zone during the previous 15 min in either daylight or nighttime, provided that the entire safety zone was visible for at least 30 min. Poor Visibility Conditions BPXA plans to conduct 24-hr operations. Regarding nighttime observations, note that there will be no periods of total darkness during the survey. There will be 24 hrs of daylight each day for the first two weeks, after which, nautical twilight will set in for 1-7.5 hrs at a time each day. MMOs are proposed not to be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night, given the very limited effectiveness of visual observation at night. At night, bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals (insofar as practical) and will call for the airguns to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety zones. If a ramp-up procedure needs to be conducted following a full shutdown at night, two MMOs need to be present to monitor for marine mammals near the source vessel and to determine if proper conditions are met for a ramp-up. The proposed provisions associated with operations at night or in periods of poor visibility include:
(1)During any nighttime operations, if the entire 180-dB safety radius is visible using vessel lights and/or night vision devices, then start of a ramp-up procedure after a complete shutdown of the airgun array may occur following a 30-min period of observation without sighting marine mammals in the safety zone.
(2)If during foggy conditions or darkness (which may be encountered starting in late August), the full 180-dB safety zone is not visible, the airguns cannot commence a ramp-up procedure from a full shutdown.
(3)If one or more airguns have been operational before nightfall or before the onset of foggy conditions, they can remain operational throughout the night or foggy conditions. In this case, ramp-up procedures can be initiated, even though the entire safety radius may not be visible, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and have moved away. BPXA considered the use of PAM in conjunction with visual monitoring to allow detection of marine mammals during poor visibility conditions, such as fog. The use of PAM for this specific survey might not be very effective because the species most commonly present (ringed seal) is not vocal during this time period. Monitoring and Reporting Plan BPXA will sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the Liberty seismic survey in order to implement the required mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the IHA, and to meet any monitoring requirements agreed to as part of the POC/CAA. The monitoring plan is described below. The monitoring work described here is planned as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may occur simultaneously in the same area. Provided that an acceptable methodology and business relationship can be worked out in advance, BPXA is prepared to work with other energy companies in its efforts to manage, understand, and fully communicate information about environmental impacts related to its activities. Vessel-based Visual Monitoring by MMOs There will be three MMOs on each source vessel during the entire survey. These vessel-based MMOs will monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessels during all daylight hours and during any ramp-up of airguns at night. In case the source vessels are not shooting but are involved in the deployment or retrieval of receiver cables, the MMOs will remain on the vessels and will continue their observations. The main purpose of the MMOs is to monitor the established safety zones and to implement the mitigation measures described previously in this document. The main objectives of the visual marine mammal monitoring from the seismic source vessels are as follows:
(1)To form the basis for implementation of mitigation measures during the seismic operation (e.g., course alteration, airgun power-down, shutdown and ramp-up);
(2)To obtain information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially affected, which must be reported to NMFS within 90 days after completion of the 2008 seismic survey program;
(3)To compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and
(4)To obtain data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals observed and compare those at times with and without seismic activity. Note that potential to successfully achieve objectives 3 and 4 is subject to the number of animals observed during the survey period. Two MMOs will also be placed on the mothership the *Arctic Wolf* during its transit from Homer or Anchorage, via the Chukchi Sea and around Barrow to the survey area. Presence of MMOs on this vessel is to prevent any potential impact on beluga whales during the spring hunt, in addition to other measures that will be taken in close communication with the whale hunters of Pt. Lay and Kotzebue, Alaska. According to BPXA, it will be important that at least one Alaska native resident who speaks Inupiat be placed on this vessel. *MMO Protocol* - BPXA will work with experienced MMOs that have had previous experience working on seismic survey vessels, which will be especially important for the lead MMO. At least one Alaska native resident who speaks Inupiat and is knowledgeable about the marine mammals of the area is expected to be included as one of the team members aboard both source vessels and the mother ship. At least one observer will monitor for marine mammals at any time during daylight hours and nighttime ramp-ups after a full shutdown (and if the entire safety zone is visible). There will be no periods of darkness until mid-August. Two MMOs will be on duty whenever feasible and practical, as the use of two simultaneous observers will increase the early detectability of animals present near the safety zone of the source vessels. MMOs will be on duty in shifts of maximum 4 hrs, but the exact shift regime will be established by the lead MMO in consultation with each MMO team member. Before the start of the seismic survey, the lead MMO will explain the function of the MMOs, their monitoring protocol, and mitigation measures to be implemented to the crew of the seismic source vessels *Peregrine* and *Miss Dianne* . Additional information will be provided to the crew by the lead MMO that will allow the crew to assist in the detection of marine mammals and (where possible and practical) in the implementation of mitigation measures. Both the *Peregrine* and *Miss Dianne* are relatively small vessels but form suitable platforms for marine mammal observations. Observations will be made from the bridges, which are respectively approximately 4.5 m (approximately 15 ft) and approximately 3.7 m (approximately 12 ft) above sea level, and where MMOs have the best view around the vessel. During daytime, the MMO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 50 Fujinon) and the naked eye. During any periods of darkness, night vision devices will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation; these are useful in training observers to estimate distances visually, but are generally not useful in measuring distances to animals directly. *Communication Procedures* - When marine mammals in the water are detected within or about to enter the designated safety zones, the airgun(s) power-down or shutdown procedures will be implemented immediately. To assure prompt implementation of power-downs and shutdowns, multiple channels of communication between the MMOs and the airgun technicians will be established. During the power-down and shutdown, the MMO(s) will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the safety radius. Airgun operations can be resumed with a ramp-up procedure (depending on the extent of the power-down) if the MMOs have visually confirmed that the animal(s) moved outside the safety zone, or if the animal(s) were not observed within the safety zone for 15 min (pinnipeds) or for 30 min (cetaceans). Direct communication with the airgun operator will be maintained throughout these procedures. *Data Recording* - All marine mammal observations and any airgun power-down, shutdown, and ramp-up will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a notebook computer. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing and archiving. Acoustic Measurements and Monitoring Acoustic measurements and monitoring will be conducted for three different purposes:
(1)To establish the distances of the safety zones;
(2)to measure source levels (i.e., received levels referenced to 1 m (3 ft) from the sound source) of each vessel of the seismic fleet to obtain knowledge on the sounds generated by the vessels; and
(3)to measure received levels offshore of the barrier islands from the seismic sound source. *Verification and Establishment of Safety Zones* - Prior to, or at the beginning of the seismic survey, acoustic measurements will be conducted to calculate received sound levels as a function of distance from the airgun sound source. These measurements will be conducted for different discharge volumes. The results of these acoustic measurements will be used to re-define the safety zone distances for received levels of 190 dB, 180 dB, and 160 dB. The 160-dB received level is monitored to avoid any behavioral disturbances of marine mammals that may be in the area. The distances of the received levels as a function of the different sound sources (varying discharge volumes) will be used to guide power-down and ramp-up procedures. A preliminary report describing the methodology and results of the measurement for at least the 190-dB and 180-dB
(rms)safety zones will be submitted to NMFS within 72-hrs of completion of the measurements. *Measurements of Vessel Sounds* - BPXA intends to measure vessel sounds of each representative vessel. The exact scope of the source level measurements (back-calculated as received levels at 1 m (3 ft) from the source) should follow a pre-defined protocol to eliminate the complex interplay of factors that underlie these measurements, such as bathymetry, vessel activity, location, season, etc. Where possible and practical the monitoring protocol will be developed in alignment with other existing vessel source level measurements. *Received Sound Levels Offshore the Barrier Islands* - The proposed seismic survey will take place inside the barrier islands, and, as such, the sounds from the seismic survey activities are not expected to propagate much beyond the shallow areas formed by these barrier islands. Aerial Surveys During the July and August timeframe, no bowhead whales are expected to be present in or close to the survey area, so no aerial surveys are planned or required for BPXA's activity. Reporting A report on the preliminary results of the acoustic verification measurements, including as a minimum the measured 190- and 180-dB
(rms)radii of the airgun sources, will be submitted within 72-hrs after collection of those measurements at the start of the field season. This report will specify the distances of the safety zones that were adopted for the survey. A report on BPXA's activities and on the relevant monitoring and mitigation results will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic survey. The report will describe the operations that were conducted, the measured sound levels, and the cetaceans and seals that were detected near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all acoustic and vessel-based marine mammal monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all whale and seal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). Marine mammal sightings will be reported at species level, however, especially during unfavorable environmental conditions (e.g., low visibility, high sea states) this will not always be possible. The number and circumstances of ramp-up, power-down, shutdown, and other mitigation actions will be reported. The report will also include estimates of the amount and nature of potential impact to marine mammals encountered during the survey. Additionally, BPXA participates in and contributes money to the Joint Industry Studies Program. This includes coastal aerial surveys in the Chukchi Sea, acoustic “net” arrays in the Chukchi Sea, and acoustic arrays in the Beaufort Sea. These studies aid in the gathering of data on abundance and distribution of marine mammals in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Comprehensive Monitoring Report In November, 2007, Shell (in coordination and cooperation with other Arctic seismic IHA holders) released a final, peer-reviewed edition of the 2006 Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July-November 2006 (LGL, 2007). This report is available for downloading on the NMFS website (see ADDRESSES ). A draft comprehensive report for 2007 was provided to NMFS and those attending the NMFS/MMS Arctic Ocean open water meeting in Anchorage, AK on April 14-16, 2008. Based on reviewer comments made at that meeting, Shell and others are currently revising this report and plans to make it available to the public shortly. Following the 2008 open water season, a comprehensive report describing the proposed acoustic, vessel-based, and aerial monitoring programs will be prepared. The 2008 comprehensive report will describe the methods, results, conclusions and limitations of each of the individual data sets in detail. The report will also integrate (to the extent possible) the studies into a broad based assessment of industry activities and their impacts on marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea during 2008. The 2008 report will form the basis for future monitoring efforts and will establish long term data sets to help evaluate changes in the Beaufort/Chukchi Sea ecosystems. The report will also incorporate studies being conducted in the Chukchi Sea and will attempt to provide a regional synthesis of available data on industry activity in offshore areas of northern Alaska that may influence marine mammal density, distribution, and behavior. This comprehensive report will consider data from many different sources including two relatively different types of aerial surveys; several types of acoustic systems for data collection (net array, PAM, vertical array, and other acoustical monitoring systems that might be deployed), and vessel based observations. Collection of comparable data across the wide array of programs will help with the synthesis of information. However, interpretation of broad patterns in data from a single year is inherently limited. Much of the 2008 data will be used to assess the efficacy of the various data collection methods and to establish protocols that will provide a basis for integration of the data sets over a period of years. ESA NMFS has previously consulted under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of IHAs for seismic survey activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on June 16, 2006, regarding the effects of this action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The Opinion concluded that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available at: *http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/BioOpinions/ARBOIII-2.pdf* . NEPA In 2006, the MMS prepared Draft and Final PEAs for seismic surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NMFS was a cooperating agency in the preparation of the MMS PEA. On November 17, 2006 (71 FR 66912), NMFS and MMS announced that they were preparing a DPEIS in order to assess the impacts of MMS' annual authorizations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to the U.S. oil and gas industry to conduct offshore geophysical seismic surveys in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska and NMFS' authorizations under the MMPA to incidentally harass marine mammals while conducting those surveys. On March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15135), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)noted the availability for comment of the NMFS/MMS DPEIS. Based upon several verbal and written requests to NMFS for additional time to review the DPEIS, EPA has twice announced an extension of the comment period until July 30, 2007 (72 FR 28044, May 18, 2007; 72 FR 38576, July 13, 2007). Because NMFS has been unable to complete the PEIS, it was determined that the 2006 PEA would need to be updated in order to meet NMFS' NEPA requirement. This approach was warranted as it was reviewing five proposed Arctic seismic survey IHAs for 2008, well within the scope of the PEA's eight consecutive seismic surveys. To update the 2006 Final PEA, NMFS prepared a SEA which incorporates by reference the 2006 Final PEA and other related documents. Determinations Based on the information provided in BPXA's application and addendum, public comments received on BPXA's application, the proposed IHA notice (73 FR 24236, May 2, 2008), this document, the 2006 and 2007 Comprehensive Monitoring Reports by Shell Oil Inc. and others, public review of BPXA's mitigation and monitoring program in Anchorage, Alaska, in April, 2008, and the analysis contained in the MMS Final PEA and NMFS' 2008 Final SEA, NMFS has determined that the impact of BPXA conducting seismic surveys in the Liberty Prospect, Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea in 2008 will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammals and that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses provided the mitigation measures required under the authorization are implemented. Moreover, as explained below, NMFS has determined that only small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock would be taken by BPXA's seismic activities. The impact of conducting a seismic survey in this area will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior of small numbers of the affected marine mammal species. NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of conducting seismic surveys in the Liberty Prospect area of the U.S. Beaufort Sea may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. While behavioral and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. In addition, no take by death and/or serious injury is anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring measures described above. For reasons explained in this document, NMFS does not expect that any marine mammals will be seriously injured or killed during BPXA's seismic survey activities, even if some animals are not detected prior to entering the 180-dB (cetacean) and 190-dB (pinniped) safety zones. These criteria were set originally by the HESS Workshop (1997, 1999) to approximate where Level A harassment (i.e., defined as “any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild”) from acoustic sources begins. Scientists have determined that these criteria are conservative as they were set for preventing TTS, not PTS. NMFS has determined that a TTS which is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound may occur at these levels. When a marine mammal experiences TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound. It should be understood that TTS is not an injury, as there is no injury to individual cells. For whales exposed to single short pulses (such as seismic), the TTS threshold appears to be a function of the energy content of the pulse. As noted in this document, the received level of a single seismic pulse might need to be >210 dB re 1 Pa rms (221-226 dB pk-pk) in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB
(rms)might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is a function of the total received pulse energy. Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 200 m (656 ft) around a seismic vessel operating a large array of airguns. As a result, NMFS believes that injury or mortality is highly unlikely due to the injury zone being close to the airgun array (astern of the vessel), the establishment of conservative safety zones and shutdown requirements (see “Mitigation Measures”) and the fact that there is a strong likelihood that baleen whales (bowhead and gray whales) would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of onset of TTS. For pinnipeds, information indicates that for single seismic impulses, sounds would need to be higher than 190 dB rms for TTS to occur while exposure to several seismic pulses indicates that some pinnipeds may incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations. This indicates to NMFS that the 190-dB safety zone provides a sufficient buffer to prevent PTS in pinnipeds. In conclusion, NMFS believes that a marine mammal within a radius of <100 m (<328 ft) around a typical large array of operating airguns (larger than that to be used by BPXA) may be exposed to a few seismic pulses with levels of >205 dB, and possibly more pulses if the marine mammal moved with the seismic vessel. However, there is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. The array to be used by BPXA is of moderate size. Given the possibility that marine mammals close to an airgun array might incur TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of seismic operations, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small (less than one percent of any of the estimated population sizes) and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document. In addition, NMFS has determined that the location for seismic activity in the Beaufort Sea meets the statutory requirement for the activity to identify the “specific geographical region” within which it will operate. With regards to dates for the activity, BPXA intends to work beginning the second week of July and ceasing activity on August 25. Finally, NMFS has determined that the seismic activity by BPXA in the Beaufort Sea in 2008 will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. This determination is supported by the information in this **Federal Register** Notice, including:
(1)activities will cease prior to the fall bowhead whale hunt in the Beaufort Sea;
(2)the CAA and IHA conditions will significantly reduce impacts on subsistence hunters to ensure that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals;
(3)because ringed seals are hunted mainly from October through June, although they are available year-round; however, the seismic survey will not occur during the primary period when these seals are typically harvested; and
(4)the main seal hunts that occur during the open water season occur in areas farther west than the Liberty Prospect, so it should not conflict with harvest activities. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to BPXA for conducting a seismic survey in the Liberty Prospect, Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea in 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: July 8, 2008. Helen M. Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-15962 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), has submitted a public information collection request
(ICR)entitled Learn and Serve America Application Instructions to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of the ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Cara Patrick, 202-606-6905 ( *cpatrick@cns.gov* ). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call
(202)565-2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Office for the Corporation for National and community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in this **Federal Register** .
(1)*By fax to:*
(202)395-6974, Attention: Ms. Katherine Astrich, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(2)*Electronically by e-mail to: Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the Corporation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. Comments A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 2, 2008. This comment period ended on June 2, 2008. No comments were received. *Description:* The Corporation is seeking approval for the renewal of the Learn and Serve America Application Instructions used for grant competitions and continuation funding requests. The application is completed electronically using eGrants, the Corporation's web-based grants management system. Applicants respond to the questions included in these instructions in order to apply for funding through Learn and Serve America competitions. *Type of Review:* Renewal. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* Learn and Serve America Application Instructions. *OMB Number:* 3045-0045 for Learn and Serve America School and Community-Based Application Instructions and 3045-0046 for Learn and Serve America Higher Education Instructions. *Affected Public:* Current/prospective recipients of Learn and Serve America funding. *Total Respondents:* 900. *Frequency:* Annually, depending upon the availability of appropriations. *Average Time Per Response:* Averages 8 hours. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 7,200 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Dated: July 9, 2008. Amy Cohen, Director, Learn and Serve America. [FR Doc. E8-16164 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 15, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: July 9, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)2004 National Assessment Implementation Study (NAIS). *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* * Responses:* 541. * Burden Hours:* 1,021. *Abstract:* The current reauthorization of IDEA
(2004)instructs the Department of Education to carry out a National Assessment of the law to measure:
(1)Progress in the implementation of IDEA 2004; and
(2)the relative effectiveness of the law in achieving its purposes. The IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study
(NAIS)will inform the National Assessment by providing a representative, national picture of the implementation of early intervention and special education policies and practices at the state and district levels with a focus on new provisions included in IDEA 2004. Data collection will include three surveys of state administrators:
(1)All State Part B administrators responsible for programs providing special education services to school aged children with disabilities (6-21);
(2)all State 619 coordinators who oversee preschool programs for children with disabilities ages 3-5, and;
(3)all State IDEA Part C coordinators who are responsible for early intervention programs serving infants and toddlers. A fourth survey will collect district level data from a nationally representative sample of local special education administrators about preschool and school-age programs for children with disabilities ages 3-21. The U.S. Department of Education has commissioned Abt Associates to conduct this study. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3753. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16086 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 15, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes the notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:
(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;
(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: July 9, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Annual Progress Report for the Access to Telework Program Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 19. *Burden Hours:* 238. *Abstract:* Nineteen states currently have Access to Telework programs that provide financial loans to individuals with disabilities for the purchase of computers and other equipment that support teleworking for an employer or self-employment on a full or part-time basis. These grantees are required to report annual data on their programs to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. This information collection provides a standard format for the submission of those annual performance reports and a follow-up survey to be administered to individuals who receive loans. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3757. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16087 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to
(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes the notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:
(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;
(2)Title;
(3)Summary of the collection;
(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;
(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and
(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: July 9, 2008. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* High School Completion Validation Study. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 5,130. *Burden Hours:* 1,845. *Abstract:* This study will be conducted as a part of the October Current Population Survey October education supplement. The purpose is to confirm the accuracy of reporting by household respondents of high school graduation status of household members by contacting reported school from which household members ages 18 to 24 were reported graduating. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov,* by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3678. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16089 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Overview Information; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)—Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year
(FY)2008. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 84.133E-8. DATES: *Applications Available:* July 15, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* July 30, 2008. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 29, 2008. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the RERC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by conducting advanced engineering research and development on innovative technologies that are designed to solve particular rehabilitation problems or remove environmental barriers. RERCs also demonstrate and evaluate such technologies, facilitate service delivery system changes, stimulate the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and provide training opportunities. Additional information on the RERC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RERC.* *Priority:* NIDRR has established a priority for this competition. The RERC for *Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability* priority is from the notice of final priority for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . *Absolute Priority:* For FY 2008, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105©(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: *Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability. Program Authority:* 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(3). *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, and 97.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 350.
(c)The notice of final priority 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:* $950,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $950,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . Note: The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 1. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* States; public or private agencies, including for-profit agencies; public or private organizations, including for-profit organizations; IHEs; and Indian tribes and tribal organizations. Note: An RERC must be operated by or in collaboration with
(a)one or more IHEs or
(b)one or more nonprofit organizations (34 CFR 350.31). 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This competition does not require cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html.* To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, *toll free:* 1-877-433-7827. *FAX:*
(301)470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, *toll free:* 1-877-576-7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: *www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html* or at its e-mail address: * edpubs@inet.ed.gov.* If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.133E-8. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under *Alternative Format* in section VIII of this notice. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 125 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative. Single spacing may be used for titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative 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:* July 15, 2008. *Date of Pre-Application Meeting:* Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting to discuss the priority and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on July 30, 2008. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 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 the meeting via conference call or for an individual consultation, contact Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202. *Telephone:*
(202)245-7462 or by *e-mail:* *Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.* Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 29, 2008. 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 this competition 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 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition, CFDA number 84.133E-8, 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 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers competition—CFDA number 84.133E-8 at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.133, not 84.133E). 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 this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you 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)245-7593. 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 84.133E-8), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260. or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA number 84.133E-8), 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 84.133E-8), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications : If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2)The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 350.54 and are listed in the application package. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* Additional factors we consider in selecting an application for an award are as follows: The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies. Submission of the information identified in this section V. 2. *Review and Selection Process* is voluntary, except where required by the selection criteria listed in the application package. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* Note: NIDRR will provide information by letter to grantees on how and when to submit the final performance report. 4. *Performance Measures:* To evaluate the overall success of its research program, NIDRR assesses the quality of its funded projects through review of grantee performance and products. Each year, NIDRR examines a portion of its grantees to determine: • The percentage of newly-awarded NIDRR projects that are multi-site, collaborative, controlled studies of interventions and programs. • The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field. • The number of new or improved NIDRR-funded assistive and universally designed technologies, products, and devices transferred to industry for potential commercialization. • The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. • The percentage of new grants that include studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods. NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports
(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 this site on a regular basis to obtain details and explanations on how NIDRR programs contribute to the advancement of the Department's long-term and annual performance goals. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6029, PCP, Washington, DC 20202. *Telephone:*
(202)245-7462 or by *e-mail: Donna.Nangle@ed.gov.* If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. VIII. Other Information *Alternative Format:* Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. *Telephone:*
(202)245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339. *Electronic Access to This Document:* You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *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: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: July 10, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-16116 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs)—Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of final priority for an RERC. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for an RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The Assistant Secretary may use this priority 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 this priority to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* This priority is effective August 14, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6029, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. *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)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: Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Program The purpose of the RERC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by conducting advanced engineering research and development on innovative technologies that are designed to solve particular rehabilitation problems or remove environmental barriers. RERCs also demonstrate and evaluate such technologies, facilitate service delivery system changes, stimulate the production and distribution of new technologies and equipment in the private sector, and provide training opportunities. General Requirements of RERCs RERCs carry out research or demonstration activities in support of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by— • Developing and disseminating innovative methods of applying advanced technology, scientific achievement, and psychological and social knowledge to:
(a)Solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers; and
(b)study and evaluate new or emerging technologies, products, or environments and their effectiveness and benefits; or • Demonstrating and disseminating:
(a)Innovative models for the delivery of cost-effective rehabilitation technology services to rural and urban areas; and
(b)other scientific research to assist in meeting the employment and independent living needs of individuals with severe disabilities; and • Facilitating service delivery systems change through:
(a)The development, evaluation, and dissemination of consumer-responsive and individual and family-centered innovative models for the delivery to both rural and urban areas of innovative cost-effective rehabilitation technology services; and
(b)other scientific research to assist in meeting the employment and independence needs of individuals with severe disabilities. Each RERC must be operated by, or in collaboration with, one or more institutions of higher education or one or more nonprofit organizations. Each RERC must provide training opportunities, in conjunction with institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations, to assist individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to become rehabilitation technology researchers and practitioners. Each RERC must emphasize the principles of universal design in its product research and development. Universal design is “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (North Carolina State University, 1997. *http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm* ). Additional information on the RERC program can be found at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.* We published a notice of proposed priorities
(NPP)for NIDRR's Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program in the **Federal Register** on April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21607). The NPP included background statements that described our rationale for the priorities proposed in that notice. In this notice of final priority (NFP), we are announcing the final priority for the RERC—Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability, one of the priorities proposed in the NPP. We published a separate notice of final priorities for the other priorities proposed in the NPP on July 7, 2008 (73 FR 38436). There are differences between the proposed priority for the RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability and the final priority for the RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability 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 priority for the RERC. An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority 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 general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority. *Comment:* Two commenters asked for clarification of NIDRR's intent with respect to the limits placed on the number of research and development projects that applicants can propose under this priority. Specifically, the commenters requested that we clarify what is intended by the language in paragraph
(a)of the priority, which states that the RERC must conduct no more than four rigorous research and development projects that address the needs of individuals with disabilities and that use state-of-the-art methodologies. These commenters also asked whether applicants could propose projects that include only research activities, only development activities, or both research and development activities. *Discussion:* The language in paragraph
(a)of the priority referenced by the commenter restricts the total number of research and development projects to be conducted by the RERC under this priority to four or fewer. We intend for this limitation to help focus the resources of the RERC and thereby increase the feasibility of the RERC's proposed activities and the likelihood of the RERC achieving its planned outcomes. We intended the language in paragraph
(a)of the priority to allow applicants to propose four or fewer rigorous research and development projects, each of which could include a combination of research and development activities, or only research or only development activities. *Changes:* NIDRR has revised paragraph
(a)of the priority by adding the words “a total of” to clarify that applicants must propose no more than a total of four research and development projects. In addition, NIDRR has revised paragraph
(a)of the priority to clarify that each research and development project proposed by the RERC may include a combination of research and development activities, or only research or only development activities. *Comment:* Two commenters noted that this priority supports research and development activities that are designed to foster improvements in technologies, assistive technologies, technology-based products, environments, and built environments. These commenters requested clarification regarding the distinctions between these terms, and recommended that the terms be used consistently throughout the priority. *Discussion:* There is no single definition of the term “technology,” but, as used in this priority, we intend for the term to refer to the practical application of science and knowledge generally. This broad definition of “technology” is intended to provide applicants under this priority with the flexibility to propose a wide range of approaches to applying, developing, modifying, testing, and evaluating technologies that promote successful aging with a disability. We believe the terms “technology” and “technologies” encompass assistive technologies, technology-based products, and built environments. In section 3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act the term assistive technology is defined as technology that is designed to be used in an assistive technology device or assistive technology service. The AT Act defines an assistive technology device as any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. The AT Act defines an assistive technology service as any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. The term “technology-based products” is intended to refer to products that utilize practical applications of science and knowledge. The distinction between technologies and technology-based products is illustrated with a specific example. A manual wheelchair is a technology-based product that utilizes specific technologies including hand-rim design and seating systems. The term “built environments” refers to man-made physical spaces such as residences, workspaces, public buildings, and facilities. “Environment” is a more general term and for that reason we removed that term from the priority. As recommended by the commenter, we revised the priority to use terms consistently throughout the priority. *Changes:* We have replaced the term “assistive technologies” with the term “technologies” and replaced the term “environments” with the term “built environments” for accuracy and consistency within the priority. *Comment:* One commenter requested that we clarify the meaning of the phrase “utility for intended users,” as used in paragraph
(b)of the priority. *Discussion:* We believe that the meaning of this phrase is clear within the context of the priority. Intended users, for purposes of this priority, are middle-aged and older adults with disabilities. Technology, technology-based products, or built environments have utility for middle-aged and older adults with disabilities to the extent that they can be used to facilitate their participation in the community. *Changes:* None. *Comment:* Two commenters asked for clarification regarding the intent of the first and second sentences of paragraph
(d)of the priority. These commenters noted that the phrase “transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the marketplace” in the first sentence has a different meaning than the reference in the second sentence to making these technologies “available to the public.” The commenters noted that transferring tangible products to the marketplace involves manufacturing, while technologies can conceptually be made available to the public via dissemination of written information. *Discussion:* The intended outcome of activities to be carried out under paragraph
(d)of the priority is the increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the marketplace. We did not intend to de-emphasize this outcome by referring to making technologies available to the public in the second sentence of paragraph (d). However, the priority's focus on transferring RERC-developed technologies to the marketplace does not preclude applicants from also actively disseminating their work through relevant publications. *Changes:* In paragraph
(d)of the priority, we have replaced the words “made available to the public” with the words “transferred to the marketplace.” Note: This notice does *not* solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . When inviting applications we designate the priorities 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 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). 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. Priority—Technologies for Successful Aging With Disability The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for the establishment of a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center
(RERC)for Technologies for Successful Aging with Disability. Under this priority, the RERC must research, evaluate, and develop new technologies and approaches, or modify and apply existing technologies and approaches that address the challenges to community participation experienced by middle-aged and older adults with disabilities in home, work, or community settings. Under this priority, the RERC must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
(a)Increased technical and scientific knowledge regarding the use of technologies for successful aging with disability. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by conducting no more than a total of four rigorous research and development projects that address the needs of individuals with disabilities and that use state-of-the-art methodologies. For purposes of this priority, a rigorous research and development project may include a combination of research and development activities, or may include only research or only development activities. These rigorous research and development projects must generate measurable results and improve policy, practice, or system capacity to use technology to meet the community participation needs of individuals who are aging with disabilities, or who are aging into disability.
(b)Improved technologies, technology-based products, and built environments for successful aging with disability. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by developing new, or modifying and applying existing technologies, technology-based products, and built environments, and testing and evaluating their utility for intended users.
(c)Increased impact of research in the area of technologies for successful aging with disability. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by providing technical assistance to public and private organizations, individuals with disabilities, and employers on policies, guidelines, and standards related to the use of technologies to facilitate successful aging with disability.
(d)Increased transfer of RERC-developed technologies to the marketplace. The RERC must contribute to this outcome by developing and implementing a technology transfer plan for ensuring that technologies developed by the RERC are transferred to the marketplace. The RERC must develop its technology transfer plan in the first year of the project period in consultation with the NIDRR-funded Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project, Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer. In addition, the RERC must— • Have the capability to design, build, and test prototype devices and assist in the transfer of successful solutions to relevant production and service delivery settings; • Evaluate the efficacy and safety of its new products, instrumentation, or assistive technology devices; • Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, a plan that describes how it will include, as appropriate, individuals with disabilities or their representatives in all phases of its activities, including research, development, training, dissemination, and evaluation; • Provide as part of its proposal, and then implement, in consultation with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR), a plan to disseminate its research results to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, disability organizations, service providers, professional journals, manufacturers, and other interested parties; • Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its designated priority research area in the fourth year of the project period, and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference in the fifth year of the project period; and • Coordinate research projects of mutual interest with relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer. 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 priority justify the costs. Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits: The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This final priority will generate new knowledge and technologies through research, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance projects. Another benefit of this final priority is that the establishment of a new RERC will support the President's NFI and will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new RERC will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will improve the options for individuals with disabilities to perform regular activities in the community. *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: *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: *www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.133E Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers Program) . Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g), 764(a), and 764(b)(3). Dated: July 10, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-16125 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Overview Information; Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2008 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number: 84.326A and 84.326N. Note: This notice invites applications for two separate competitions. For key dates, contact person information, and funding information regarding each competition, see the chart in the *Award Information* section of this notice. *Dates:* *Applications Available:* See chart. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* See chart. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and improve results for children with disabilities by supporting technical assistance (TA), model demonstration projects, dissemination of useful information, and implementation activities that are supported by scientifically based research. *Priorities:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv) and (v), these priorities are from allowable activities specified in the statute, or otherwise authorized in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). Each of the absolute priorities announced in this notice corresponds to a separate competition as follows: Absolute priority Competition CFDA No. The IDEA Partnership Project 84.326A National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities 84.326N *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2008, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), for each competition, we consider only applications that meet the absolute priority for that competition. The priorities are: Absolute Priority 1—The IDEA Partnership Project (84.326A) Background The IDEA and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and their implementing regulations contain a number of provisions related to the instruction and assessment of, and accountability for, students with disabilities that require changes in policy and practice at many different levels of the educational service system and in both regular and special education: State and district policies must change, teachers must be trained, administrative supports must be provided, and parents must be informed. Coordinating change across regular and special education is challenging because teachers, administrators, other professionals, and parents typically differ in their training, experiences, priorities, and perspectives. In order to support and facilitate the effective implementation of IDEA and NCLB, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP)has funded partnership projects that bring together representatives from national associations that have a vested interest in improving results for all students, including students with disabilities. These associations represent a wide range of interests and viewpoints in both regular and special education, including those of policymakers, local administrators, service providers, and family members. Each of these national associations has members working directly with administrators, teachers, parents, and others at the State and local levels (State and local affiliates) who are responsible for implementing the requirements of IDEA and NCLB. An example of how partnerships with national organizations worked together to support the implementation of an instructional practice that affects both regular and special education is the work of the OSEP-funded IDEA Partnership Project's National Community of Practice on NCLB/IDEA Collaboration. The project developed TA materials for their State and local affiliates to use to facilitate and promote schools' and districts' implementation of Response to Intervention
(RTI)strategies. RTI was selected because changes in policies and practices at many different levels of the special education and regular education systems must be made to maximize the effectiveness of RTI approaches. 1 1 RTI is a multi-level approach that seeks to maximize student achievement. Schools provide a research-based core curriculum to all students in regular education and use universal screening to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes. At-risk learners are provided with research-based interventions, and their progress is continuously monitored. Decisions about the intensity and nature of interventions that students receive and their potential eligibility to receive special education and related services are made based on the progress monitoring data (Hintz, 2008; National Center on Response to Intervention, 2008). The TA materials were designed to articulate a consistent message about RTI, using appropriate formats and content relevant to the information needed by policy makers, local administrators, service providers, and families to support effective implementation of RTI. This approach helped State and local affiliates of multiple national associations understand the core components of RTI, engage with each other in discussions about RTI, and work together to align policy with effective RTI implementation at all levels of the education system. For further information on the past work of the Partnership Project, go to *http://www.ideapartnership.org/.* The Department seeks to fund another Partnership project to provide opportunities for national associations to collaborate with each other and with their collective State and local affiliates to improve the implementation of education policies and practices in States. These associations and their State and local affiliates need continued support to engage in meaningful dialogue and problem solving that will improve the implementation of IDEA and NCLB within States. Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of an IDEA Partnership Project (Partnership Project) that will strengthen and unite national associations, and their State and local affiliates, representing policymakers, service providers, local-level administrators, and families to collaborate to improve the implementation of IDEA and NCLB. To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in the priority. The project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: For more information on logic models, the following Web site lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm.*
(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority;
(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
(d)A budget for attendance at the following:
(1)A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2)A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3)A four-day Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(4)Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(e)A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the award amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP. Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Partnership Project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
(f)Assurances that no financial commitments were made to any associations or membership organizations in developing this application. The Partnership Project will negotiate any financial commitments to associations during the first month of the project period with final approval by OSEP. *Project Activities.* To meet the requirements of this priority, the Partnership Project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
(a)Form a single partnership among national associations and their State and local affiliates that focuses on regular education and special education in order to meet the collective needs of the following four audiences:
(1)Policymakers including, but not limited to, associations of chief State school officers, State boards of education, local school boards, State directors of special education, ESEA Title I coordinators, mental health coordinators, children with special health care needs coordinators, deans of schools of education, department chairs at institutions of higher education, superintendents, governors, and State legislators.
(2)Service providers including, but not limited to, associations of regular and special education teachers, community-based providers of education services, vocational education teachers, related services providers, and paraprofessionals.
(3)Local-level administrators including, but not limited to, associations of elementary, middle, and secondary school principals; regular and special education administrators; and administrators of private schools.
(4)Families including, but not limited to, associations of parents and family members of children in regular and special education, and disability organizations representing individuals with disabilities and family members of individuals with disabilities.
(b)Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the activities and outcomes of the Partnership Project and provide programmatic support and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory committee must meet on an annual basis in Washington, DC, and consist of individuals representing each of the four constituency groups listed in paragraph
(a)and representatives from OSEP and other federally-funded TA projects. The Partnership Project must submit the names of proposed members of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award.
(c)Conduct a needs assessment of the partner organizations to identify their needs in relation to the implementation of IDEA and NCLB;
(d)Report results of the needs assessment to the advisory committee within the first three months of the project period.
(e)Based on the results of the needs assessment and with input from the advisory committee and the partnering organizations, develop and implement a plan annually for coordinated training, TA, dissemination, and outreach to the partners' State and local affiliates. Each annual plan must address needs related to the integration and coordination of regular and special education, as well as needs identified by OSEP in reviewing State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports. The project's annual plan, which must be submitted to OSEP for approval prior to implementation, must include the following information:
(1)How partnering organizations will reach their members at both the State and local levels and work with them and each other to implement the plan.
(2)How specific activities in the plan will be conducted and coordinated with those of other OSEP and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)-funded TA centers, and a timeline for implementing the activities.
(3)If the plan includes implementing research-based practices or interventions, how partner organizations will support State and local affiliates to implement those practices or interventions to effectively implement NCLB and IDEA.
(4)How trainers who are members of partner organizations will be compensated for their training time.
(5)How partners will leverage other resources to support planned activities.
(6)How the Partnership Project will serve as a broker for TA services between the partners and other OSEP and OESE TA projects.
(f)Create opportunities for the Partnership Project's partnering organizations to engage in cross-stakeholder communication, learning, and strategic planning to address the complex challenges associated with implementing IDEA and NCLB to improve results for children with disabilities.
(g)Establish the following:
(1)A Web site that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility and that links to the Web site operated by the Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC), which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008.
(2)A comprehensive, up-to-date, and searchable database of partners' products and activities that is accessible to all partners.
(3)A mechanism for regularly updating partners on new developments in relevant legislation.
(h)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects, including the communities of practice, the Parent Training and Information Centers, the TACC, and the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities, which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008. This collaboration could include the joint development of products, the coordination of TA services, and the planning and carrying out of TA meetings and events.
(i)Although product development is not a primary function of this project, comply with the following requirements, when product development is needed:
(1)If OSEP funds a TA center in the content area that is the topic of the proposed product, but no product currently exists that will meet the needs of the Partnership Project, work with the content center to develop a product that is research-based (i.e., consistent with research and theory on the topic).
(2)Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer and the Proposed Product Advisory Board at OSEP's TACC for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.
(3)Before submitting a draft of a product to the OSEP Project Officer, request input from individuals representing each of the four constituency groups (listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4) under *Project Activities* ).
(4)Coordinate with the National Dissemination Center for Individuals with Disabilities to develop an efficient and high-quality dissemination strategy that reaches the broad audiences to be targeted by the project. The Partnership Project must report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination efforts.
(j)Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the Partnership Project's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix ( *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org/* ), which provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders.
(k)Conduct a summative evaluation of the Partnership Project in collaboration with the OSEP-funded Center to Improve Project Performance
(CIPP)as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the Partnership Project's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities. Note: The major tasks of CIPP would be to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data. To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP and with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, the Partnership Project must—
(1)Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the Partnership Project to work with CIPP on the following tasks:
(i)Planning for the Partnership Project's summative evaluation (e.g., selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation),
(ii)developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments),
(iii)coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of the Partnership Project's activities,
(iv)collecting summative data, and
(v)writing reports of summative evaluation findings;
(2)Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph
(1)of this section; and
(3)Dedicate $80,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs
(1)and
(2)of this section, implementing the Partnership Project's formative evaluation, and traveling to Washington, DC in the second year of the project period for the Partnership Project's review for continued funding.
(l)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication. Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project In deciding whether to continue funding the Partnership Project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a)The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period. Projects must budget for travel for this one-day intensive review;
(b)The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Partnership Project; and
(c)The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Partnership Project's activities and products and the degree to which the Partnership Project's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved
(1)collaboration across regular education, special education, and parent partner organizations to support and facilitate the effective implementation of IDEA and NCLB at the national, State, and local levels;
(2)implementation of research-based practices; and
(3)involvement of national organizations' State and local affiliates in the implementation of IDEA and NCLB at the State and local levels. References Fixen, D., Blase, K., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2008). —Concept paper: Developing the capacity for scaling up evidence-based programs in state departments of education (retrieved on May 12, 2008 from *http://sisep.fmhi.usf.edu/docs/State_Capacity_Development_0208.pdf* ). Hintz, (2008). Conceptual and Empirical Issues Related to Developing a Response-to-Intervention Framework. [Electronic version] (retrieved on May 14, 2008 from *http://www.studentprogress.org/doc/Hintze2008ConceptualandEmpiricalIssuesofRTI.doc* ). National Center on Response to Intervention (2008). What is RTI? (retrieved on May 14, 2008 from *http://www.rti4success.org/* ). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2008). Core concepts of RTI. [Electronic version] (retrieved on April 10, 2008 from *http://www.nrcld.org/about/research/rti/concepts.html* ) Absolute Priority 2—National Dissemination Center for Children With Disabilities (84.326N) Background Along with an increased demand for educational accountability and improvement, diverse audiences, including educators and parents, have a greater need for information about education that addresses topics such as standards, assessments, and instructional practices (Petrides & Nodine, 2003). The increased need for information is reflected in an increase in the number of visits to the Web site of the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The Center is a central source for information on disabilities in children, the laws that affect children with disabilities, and effective educational and early intervention practices that can be implemented to improve outcomes for students and infants and toddlers with disabilities. Along with the increased need for information and the number of channels through which information is disseminated, individuals' preferences for obtaining information have changed (Caffarella, 2002; Kilgore, 2001). In 2005, NICHCY disseminated approximately 149,000 printed products in English and about 55,300 printed products in Spanish. In 2006, NICHCY disseminated a significantly smaller number of printed materials (approximately 27,000 total in English and Spanish), presumably reflecting consumers' increased use of a variety of technology and electronic retrieval methods to access information. Current demographic patterns of students in regular education and special education, and of children participating in early intervention programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2007), indicate an increased prevalence of certain disabilities. Given this demographic change and the movement of students between regular and special education, the audience interested in information regarding children with disabilities and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)is likely to become larger and more diverse in the future. Further, with increases in research and knowledge production, existing materials will need to be updated and revised and new materials will need to be created to keep pace with the increased customer demand for up-to-date information. Moreover, innovative approaches to dissemination, for example the use of diverse channels such as Webinars, will be needed to reach these audiences. Similarly, as education audiences increasingly request information through diverse channels, they also will expect this information to be customized and targeted. When information is conveyed using channels and formats aligned with the needs and preferences of end-users, knowledge transfer and learning may be more likely to occur (Hood, 2002). In sum, a new national dissemination center for children with disabilities is needed that will build on the work of NICHCY to respond to the expanding information needs and preferences of diverse audiences. Priority The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (Center). The Center must
(a)develop and disseminate information about children with disabilities and IDEA that will be readily accessible to a broad range of audiences, and
(b)provide leadership in the design and implementation of integrated, responsive, and effective information dissemination strategies. To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. Any project funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. *Application Requirements.* An applicant must include in its application—
(a)A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project; Note: The following Web site provides more information on logic models and lists multiple online resources: *http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm*
(b)A plan to implement the activities described in the *Project Activities* section of this priority;
(c)A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services. Specifically, the Center must examine its dissemination activities to ensure that the information needs of targeted audiences (e.g., parents, families, early intervention personnel, educators) are being met;
(d)A budget for attendance at the following:
(1)A one and one half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC within four weeks after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC with the OSEP Project Officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
(2)A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3)A four-day Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(4)Three one-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(e)A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of five percent of the award amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP. Note: With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period. *Project Activities.* To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities: Knowledge Development Activities
(a)Identify and analyze quantitative and qualitative data, and other relevant sources, to determine the topical and informational needs of families, early intervention personnel, and educators. Sources for these data include, but are not limited to, the Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), Parent Technical Assistance Centers, the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, and the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers funded through the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
(b)Develop strategies, in cooperation with the Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC), which OSEP intends to fund in FY 2008, to provide needed information about children with disabilities in a mode and manner easily accessed and understood by diverse audiences, including persons with limited English proficiency, individuals who have low literacy skills or who are not literate, and individuals with disabilities. Strategies must include developing informational materials that are universally designed (for more information on universal design, the following Web site provides multiple online resources: *http://www.cast.org* ) and that are available in alternate formats (e.g., Braille) and languages. Activities must include a review of the efficiency and efficacy of different vehicles for disseminating needed information to various audiences, including those strategies used across OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Network. Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities
(a)Maintain a customer-service response system that enables individuals who request information to access that information in multiple ways. Points of access must include, but not be limited to, a toll-free telephone number, toll-free TTY, e-mail, and a Web site. Information response activities must include developing and disseminating documents and providing referrals to a broad range of service agencies upon request. Information services must be flexible in delivery format and hours of operation and be available, to the maximum extent possible, in multiple languages. The Web site must meet a government- or industry-recognized standard for accessibility and link to the Web site operated by TACC.
(b)Conceptualize, design, and produce an electronic newsletter that informs diverse audiences about the products and services available from OSEP-funded projects, and, as appropriate, products and services available from projects funded by other offices in the Department.
(c)Review IDEA-related materials developed by relevant Federal, State, and local public and private organizations to identify gaps in the information targeted for parents, families, early intervention personnel, and educators and offer recommendations to OSEP's TA&D Network to address these information gaps. Recommendations may include amending existing informational materials or developing new materials. The Center must make selected materials produced available for parents and families in both English and Spanish. Leadership and Coordination Activities
(a)Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the activities and outcomes of the Center and provide programmatic support and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory committee must meet annually, whether in person, or by phone or another means and consist of family members of children with disabilities, regular and special educators, early intervention personnel, and technical assistance providers, as appropriate. The Center must submit the names of proposed members of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after receipt of the award.
(b)Collaborate with relevant Federal, State, and local public and private organizations to plan and conduct outreach activities that promote awareness of disability issues using innovative technologies and particularly targeting remote or underserved populations. This plan and annual updates on its implementation must be submitted to OSEP and the advisory committee.
(c)Collect the dissemination plans from OSEP's TA&D projects and provide feedback on ways the projects can improve their respective dissemination plans to reach their target audiences. Based on the review of these plans and a review of evidence-based dissemination practices, develop a comprehensive dissemination strategy for OSEP's TA&D Network.
(d)Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-funded projects, including TACC, the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, and the Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers. This collaboration could include the joint development of products, the coordination of TA services, and the planning and carrying out of TA meetings and events.
(e)Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, OSEP communities of practice ( *http://www.tacommunities.org/* ) that are aligned with the Center's objectives as a way to support discussions and collaboration among key stakeholders.
(f)Prior to developing any new product, whether paper or electronic, submit to the OSEP Project Officer and the Proposed Product Advisory Board at OSEP's TACC for approval, a proposal describing the content and purpose of the product.
(g)Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the Center's services to OSEP's Technical Assistance and Dissemination Matrix ( *http://matrix.rrfcnetwork.org/* ), which provides current information on Department-funded TA services to a range of stakeholders.
(h)Conduct a summative evaluation of the Center in collaboration with the Center to Improve Project Performance
(CIPP)as described in the following paragraphs. This summative evaluation must examine the outcomes or impact of the Center's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities. Note: The major tasks of CIPP are to guide, coordinate, and oversee the summative evaluations conducted by selected Technical Assistance, Personnel Development, Parent Training and Information Center, and Technology projects that individually receive $500,000 or more funding from OSEP annually. The efforts of CIPP are expected to enhance individual project evaluations by providing expert and unbiased assistance in designing evaluations, conducting analyses, and interpreting data. To fulfill the requirements of the summative evaluation to be conducted under the guidance of CIPP, the Center must—
(1)Hire or designate, with the approval of the OSEP Project Officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the Center to work with CIPP on the following tasks:
(i)Planning the Center's summative evaluation ( *e.g.* , selecting evaluation questions, developing a timeline for the evaluation, locating sources of relevant data, and refining the logic model used for the evaluation),
(ii)developing the summative evaluation design and instrumentation (e.g., determining quantitative or qualitative data collection strategies, selecting respondent samples, and pilot testing instruments),
(iii)coordinating the evaluation timeline with the implementation of the Center's activities,
(iv)collecting summative data, and
(v)writing reports of summative evaluation findings;
(2)Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph
(1)of this section; and
(3)Dedicate $50,000 of the annual budget request for this project to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs
(1)and
(2)of this section, implementing the Center's formative evaluation, and traveling to Washington, DC in the second year of the project period for the Center's review for continued funding.
(i)Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer through monthly phone conversations and e-mail communication. Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a)The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting in Washington, DC that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period. Projects must budget for travel for this one-day intensive review;
(b)The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and
(c)The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved knowledge and awareness regarding the implementation of IDEA. References Caffarella, R.S. (2002). *Planning programs for adult learners.* San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hood, P. (2002). *Perspectives on knowledge utilization in education.* San Francisco: WestEd. Kilgore, D.W. (2001). Critical and postmodern perspectives on adult learning. In S. Merriam (Ed). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, (pp 53-61). New Jersey: Jossey-Bass Publishing. Petrides, L.A. & Nodine, T.R. (2003). Knowledge management in education: Defining the landscape. Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education. Available at *http://www.iskme.org/what-we-do/publications/km-in-education.* U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, *27th Annual
(2005)Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.* (2007). Washington, DC: Author. *Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:* Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priorities in this notice. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education
(IHEs)only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative agreements. *Estimated Available Funds:* $2,500,000. Please refer to the “Estimated Available Funds” column of the chart in this section for the estimated dollar amounts for individual competitions. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* See chart. *Maximum Awards:* See chart. *Estimated Number of Awards:* See chart. *Project Period:* See chart. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities Application Notice for Fiscal Year 2008 CFDA No. and name Applications available Deadline for transmittal of applications Deadline for intergovernmental review Estimated available funds Estimated average size of awards Maximum award * Estimated number of awards Project period Contact person 84.326A—The IDEA Partnership Project July 15, 2008 August 14, 2008 August 25, 2008 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 1 Up to 60 months Debra Price-Ellingstad,
(202)245-7481, Room 4097. July 15, 2008 August 14, 2008 August 25, 2008 84.326N—National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 1 Up to 60 months Judy Shanley
(202)245-6538, Room 4120. * We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum award for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the **Federal Register** . Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* State educational agencies (SEAs); local educational agencies (LEAs); public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* The program does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other: General Requirements* —(a) The projects funded under this program must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b)Applicants and grant recipients funded under this program must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA). IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Education Publications Center (ED Pubs), 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 package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify the competition to which you want to apply, as follows: CFDA Number 84.326A or 84.326N. 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. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 70 pages for each absolute priority, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including 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 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 two-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. The page limit, however, does apply to the application narrative in Part III. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you use other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* See chart. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* See chart. Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under *For Further Information Contact* in section VII in this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: See chart. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for each of the competitions announced in this notice. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section in this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. a. Electronic Submission of Applications. To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program, CFDA Numbers 84.326A and 84.326N, announced in this notice are included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov. If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at *http://www.Grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. You may access the electronic grant application for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program competitions—CFDA numbers 84.326A and 84.326N at *http://www.Grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.326, not 84.326A or 84.326N). Please note the following: • Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary. • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. 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 also can find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). These steps include:
(1)Registering your organization, a multi-part process that includes registration with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR);
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www.grants.gov/section910/Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf).* You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to submit successfully an application via Grants.gov. In addition you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format. • If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance). • If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System:* If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll-free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 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. b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326A or 84.326N), 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 84.326A or 84.326N), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark.
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery. If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.326A or 84.326N) 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 this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application packages for each competition announced in this notice. 2. *Peer Review:* In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers, by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group. 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 also may 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* 4. *Performance Measures:* Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program. These measures focus on the extent to which projects provide high quality products and services, the relevance of project products and services to educational and early intervention policy and practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational and early intervention policy and practice. The grantee will be required to provide information related to these measures. The grantee also will be required to report information on the project's performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590). VII. Agency Contact *For Further Information Contact:* See chart in the *Award Information* section of this notice for the name, room number and telephone number of the contact person for each competition. You can write to the contact at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2550. 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 10, 2008. Tracy R. Justesen, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E8-16128 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2008 Department of Energy Nuclear Suppliers Outreach Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), will co-sponsor a Suppliers Outreach event for suppliers interested in providing service and products in the nuclear sector. DATES: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 8 a.m.-6 p.m. ADDRESSES: The Hyatt Regency Tech Center Hotel, 7800 E Tufts Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80237. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Osbourne, Event Coordinator, Performance Results Corporation, 2605 Cranberry Square, Morgantown, WV 26508. Phone
(304)291-2100; Fax
(304)291-5885 or e-mail: *nosbourne@prc8a.com* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the meeting:* This nuclear suppliers' outreach event is an excellent opportunity for companies interested in working in the DOE nuclear sector to gain insights into the current and future markets for products and services, and requirements to enter or to continue to work on nuclear projects in the DOE-complex. In addition, participants will have the opportunity to interact directly with senior executives, project managers, and procurement personnel working for DOE and its prime contractors; and, gain insight into Nuclear Quality Assurance program requirements applicable to both the DOE and commercial nuclear industry sectors. The purpose of this forum is two fold. First, it will help ensure that all EM and NNSA sites have an adequate number of qualified nuclear and non-nuclear suppliers for future projects and programs. Second, it will provide information for suppliers regarding the needs of DOE projects and programs for their products and services in the years ahead. Agenda 8 a.m. Welcome and Logistics 8:15 a.m. Key Note Addresses • Perspectives on EM Nuclear Project Needs • Perspectives on NNSA Nuclear Project Needs • Perspectives on U.S. Business Competitiveness in Nuclear Energy 9:45 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m. Market Outlooks for Nuclear Suppliers • Commercial Nuclear Industry Supplier Interactions and Future Direction • DOE/EM Outlook: Major Construction and Operation Projects • DOE/NNSA Outlook: Major Construction and Operation Projects • Nuclear Quality Assurance
(NQA)Requirements and Impact on Suppliers 11:45 a.m. Question and Answer Period 12 p.m. Lunch 1:30 p.m. Concurrent Panel Discussions: NQA-1 Based Procurement Challenges and Major Issues • Panel Session: Nuclear Services (Design, Engineering, Construction) • Panel Session: Nuclear Equipment (Pumps, Valves, Tanks, Pipes) 3 p.m. DOE Site and Industry Interactions • EM/NNSA Site Tables: Federal and Contractor procurement representatives from each site will be available to discuss specific needs and issues • NQA-1 Table: ASME representatives will be available to discuss Quality Assurance Program requirements and program implementation Registration Information: There is no conference fee. Participants may register at *http://www.prc8a.com/doenuclearsuppliersoutreachmeeting/* , or by contacting Nancy Osbourne at the address or telephone number listed above. Issued at Washington, DC, on July 9, 2008. Dae Y. Chung, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Safety Management and Operations. [FR Doc. E8-16028 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; State Energy Advisory Board AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open teleconference. SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these teleconferences be announced in the **Federal Register** . DATES: July 15, 2008 from 2. p.m. to 3. p.m. EDT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Burch, STEAB Designated Federal Officer, Acting Assistant Manager, Office of Commercialization and Project Management, Golden Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401, Telephone 303/275-4801. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Board:* To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440). *Tentative Agenda:* Update members on routine business matters. *Public Participation:* The teleconference is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the conference call; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the call in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. *Notes:* The notes of the teleconference will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, *http://www.steab.org.* Issued at Washington, DC, on July 9, 2008. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16162 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. P-400-051] Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments July 8, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-400-051. c. *Date Filed:* June 26, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Public Service Company of Colorado. e. *Name of Project:* Ames Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The existing project is located on Lake Fork, Howard Fork, and South Fork of the San Miguel River, in San Miguel County, about 6 miles north of Telluride, Colorado. The Ames Project occupies 99 acres of the Uncompahgre National Forest. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r) h. *Applicant Contact:* Randy Rhodes, Public Service Company of Colorado, 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden Colorado 80403; telephone
(720)497-2123. i. *FERC Contact:* David Turner
(202)502-6091 or via e-mail at *david.turner@ferc.gov.* j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. k. *Project Description:* The existing project uses water that originates in two separate subbasins (Lake Fork and Howard's Fork) of the South Fork San Miguel River. The existing project, from upstream to downstream along Lake Fork and Howard's Fork, respectively, consists of the following:
(1)A 44-acre reservoir (Hope Lake) that has 2,000 acre-feet of active storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 11,910 feet;
(2)a 150-foot-long, 20-foot high rock-filled, timber dam (Hope Lake dam), with a 816-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, and 6-foot-high rock tunnel that releases water from Hope Lake to Lake Fork Creek;
(3)a 138-acre reservoir (Trout Lake) with 2,500 acre-feet of active storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 9,700 feet;
(4)a 570-foot-long, 30-foot-high earth-filled dam (Trout Lake dam) with a 42-inch-diameter, concrete encased steel pipe outlet that extends through the embankment;
(5)a 12,650-foot-long, 42-inch to 26-inch-diameter steel pipe penstock that conveys water from Trout Lake to the Ames powerhouse;
(6)a 260-foot-long, 6-foot-high earth-filled and timber crib diversion dam on the Howards Fork, with a concrete inlet structure, which diverts water from a sluiceway constructed through the embankment via a manually-operated 9-foot-wide steel slide gate at the downstream end of the sluiceway;
(7)a 4,500-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter welded steel penstock;
(8)a 2,000-foot-long, 18-inch-diameter steel penstock;
(9)the 44-foot-long, 54-foot-wide, stone masonry Ames powerhouse that contains one 3.6 megawatt
(MW)generating unit; and
(10)appurtenant facilities. The project is operated both as a base-load plant and a peaking plant depending on the time of the year; the applicant does not propose any changes to project operations. The applicant is proposing new recreation facilities at Trout Lake, along with additions and deletions to the project boundary due to new land surveys and easements l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. *Procedural Schedule:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. For example, issuance of the Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice is based on the assumption that there will be no additional information. Milestone Date Application Deficiency Determination Letter and Issuance of Additional Information Requests
(AIRs)July 2008. Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis August 2008. Filing of Interventions, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions October 2008. Reply Comments Due December 2008. Issuance of Draft EA January 2009. Comments on Draft EA Due February 2009. Filing of Modified Terms and Conditions April 2009. Issuance of Final EA July 2009. o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16047 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. P-12589-001] Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments July 8, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No.:* P-12589-001. c. *Date Filed:* June 25, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Public Service Company of Colorado. e. *Name of Project:* Tacoma Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The existing project is located on Cascade Creek, Little Cascade Creek and Elbert Creek in La Plata and San Juan Counties, Colorado. The Tacoma Project occupies 221 acres of the San Juan National Forest. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Randy Rhodes, Public Service Company of Colorado, 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden Colorado 80403; telephone
(720)497-2123. i. *FERC Contact:* David Turner
(202)502-6091 or via e-mail at *david.turner@ferc.gov.* j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. k. *Project Description:* The existing project consists of the following:
(1)A 30-foot-long, 10-foot-high concrete diversion dam on Cascade Creek;
(2)a 4,200-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter, semi-circular, elevated wooden flume;
(3)a 1,400-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter steel inverted siphon;
(4)a 14,500-foot-long, 64-inch-diameter steel pipeline;
(5)the open channel of Little Cascade Creek;
(6)a 0.5-mile-long, 5-foot-deep lake (Columbine Lake) formed by a small, partially breached timber dam on Little Cascade Creek;
(7)the open channel of Little Cascade Creek downstream of Columbine Lake;
(8)the 4-acre Aspaas Lake;
(9)a 274-foot-long, 27-foot-high, earth-filled Aspaas dam;
(10)a 14-foot-wide, rock-cut open diversion channel that diverts flow from Aspaas Lake to Electra Lake;
(11)the 800-acre Electra Lake;
(12)a 140-foot-long, 20-foot-high, rock-filled, timber crib dam (Stagecoach dam) serving as the spillway for Electra Lake;
(13)a 1,270-foot-long, 62-foot-high, rock-filled dam (Terminal dam), with an impermeable asphalt membrane on the upstream face and an asphalt-paved crest;
(14)a 429-foot-long, 54-inch-diameter steel pipe intake under the Terminal dam that leads project flows from Electra Lake to a valve vault;
(15)the valve vault;
(16)a 9,590-foot-long, 66-inch-diameter welded steel penstock, with a 12-foot-diameter, 116-foot-high surge tank;
(17)a bifurcated penstock structure that diverts flow to a 2,050-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter welded steel penstock that enters the powerhouse and a 2,050-foot-long, 54-inch diameter welded steel penstock that branches to a 46-inch diameter pipe immediately prior to entering the power house;
(18)a 108-foot-long, 64-foot-wide, steel frame, brick powerhouse containing three generating units with a total installed capacity of 8 megawatts (MW);
(19)a 44 kV substation adjacent to the powerhouse; and
(20)appurtenant facilities. The project is operated both as a base-load plant and a peaking plant depending on the time of the year. The applicant proposes the following changes to project facilities:
(1)project boundary modifications to reflect lands needed for project operations;
(2)rehabilitation and addition of the 6-foot-high Canyon Creek diversion to supply potable water, emergency cooling water, and fire protection;
(3)the addition of 4 MW turbine-generator (Unit 4); and
(4)several recreation and environmental measures. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. n. *Procedural Schedule:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. For example, issuance of the Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice is based on the assumption that there will be no additional information. Milestone Date Application Deficiency Determination Letter and Issuance of Additional Information Requests
(AIRs)July 2008. Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis August 2008. Filing of Interventions, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions October 2008. Reply Comments Due December 2008. Issuance of Draft EA January 2009. Comments on Draft EA Due February 2009. Filing of Modified Terms and Conditions April 2009. Issuance of Final EA July 2009. o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16049 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 459-229] Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE; Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests July 9, 2008. Take notice that Commission hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. b. *Project No:* 459-229. c. *Date Filed:* June 23, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE. e. *Name of Project:* Osage Project. f. *Location:* The proposal would be located at the Bella Sera Condominium community near mile marker 31.2+0.1 on the Osage Branch 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). 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 Isis Johnson, Telephone
(202)502-6346, and e-mail: *Isis.Johnson@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:* August 11, 2008. 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. Please include the project number (P-459-229) on any comments or motions filed. 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 under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings. k. *Description of Request:* Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE (licensee) filed an application seeking Commission approval to grant permission to Irongate, LLC dba Bella Sera Condominiums to install three multi-slip boat docks on the Osage Branch of the Lake of the Ozarks. The three docks would include a total of 35 boat slips to serve the residents of the Bella Sera Condominium community. The applicant also proposes to provide electrical power to the slips. The proposed facilities would be floated into place and 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 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. *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. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. 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. E8-16210 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13228-000] Wellesley Rosewood Maynard Mills LP; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 9, 2008. On May 19, 2008, Wellesley Rosewood Maynard Mills LP filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Clock Tower Place Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Assabet River in the Maynard area of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The proposed project would consist of:
(1)Two existing dams, the larger constructed of dry-laid, cut granite blocks, 9.5-foot-high and 170-foot-long and the smaller a masonry-faced embankment structure, respectively, for the upper and lower reservoirs which would have water surface elevations of 177 and 176 feet, MSL, a
(2)proposed powerhouse containing one generating unit having a total installed capacity of 290 kilowatts, a
(3)proposed 49-foot-long penstock and twin 300-foot-long tailrace tunnels, a
(4)1,600-foot-long power canal leading to the gatehouse,
(5)incorporation of an existing transformer to interconnect equipment with Clock Tower Place at 208y/120 volts, and
(5)appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual energy generation of 1,241,000 kWh per year. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Buonato, President, Wellesley Rosewood Maynard Mills LLC, 12 Clock Tower Place, Suite 200, Maynard, MA 01754; phone: 978-823-8224. FERC Contact: Alyssa Dorval, 202-502-6735. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website under the “e-Filing” link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at *http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.* More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.* Enter the docket number (P-13228) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16207 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 2 July 03, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1489-002. *Applicants:* S.A.C. Energy Investments, L.P. *Description:* SAC Energy Investments, LP submits an updated market power analysis, request for Category 1 Seller, and rate schedule revisions pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-19-004; ER06-761-003; ER08-620-001. *Applicants:* NewPage Energy Services, LLC; Rumford Paper Company; Luke Paper Company. *Description:* NewPage Energy Services, LLC et al. submits the Updated Market Power Analysis proposed tariff amendments pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-234-001; ER04-1222-001. *Applicants:* Deutsche Bank AG; DB Energy Trading LLC. *Description:* Deutsche Bank AG et al. submits an application for designation as Category 1 sellers pursuant to Orders 697 and 697-A compliance filings, in the alternative, providing updated market power analysis etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-271-001; ER06-270-001. *Applicants:* Solios Power LLC; Solios Asset Management LLC. *Description:* Solios Power, LLC and Solios Asset Management, LLC submits a request for Category 1 Seller Classification and compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0094. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-740-003. *Applicants:* Indeck Energy Services of Silver Springs. *Description:* Indeck Energy Services of Silver Springs, Inc. submits an application for determination of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1399-006. *Applicants:* Sunbury Generation LP. *Description:* Sunbury Generation LP submits its compliance filing pursuant to Order 697 issued by FERC on 6/21/07. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-30-002. *Applicants:* RC Cape May Holdings, LLC. *Description:* RC Cape May Holdings, LLC submits an updated market power analysis in support of its continued authorization to make wholesale sales electric energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0030. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1019-005; ER07-1020-005; ER07-1021-005. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. submits amended interconnection agreements with Alliance Energy et al. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1050-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised sheets to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1088-001. *Applicants:* RBC Energy Services LP. *Description:* RBC Energy Services, LP's Order 697 Compliance Filing, Application for Category 1 Status, and filing of pro forma tariff changes. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1106-001. *Applicants:* ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC. *Description:* ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC submits request for Category 1 Seller classification in the Northeast region etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1193-001. *Applicants:* CPV Liberty, LLC. *Description:* CPV Liberty, LLC submits a market power update in compliance with the Commission's order granting CPV Liberty's market-based rate authority, and Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1212-001. *Applicants:* Forked River Power LLC. *Description:* Application of Forked River Power LLC for Finding as a Category 1 Seller. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5153. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1221-004. *Applicants:* Rensselaer Cogeneration LLC. *Description:* Rensselaer Cogeneration LLC submits its market power analysis, together with six clean and six redlined copies of its revised tariff reflecting Category 1 status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1249-004. *Applicants:* Lockport Energy Associates, L.P. *Description:* Lockport Energy Associates, LP submits its triennial market power analysis with respect to its authority to sell energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1274-001; ER98-564-010; ER05-111-004; ER08-25-003; ER08-26-003; ER08-685-002. *Applicants:* TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC; TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd; TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.; Ocean State Power; Ocean State Power II; TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc. *Description:* TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC et al. submits its updated market power analysis supporting their continued authorization to sell power at market-based rates et al. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008; 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0201; 20080702-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-274-002. *Applicants:* Juice Energy, Inc. *Description:* Juice Energy, Inc. notifies FERC that it is a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-352-002. *Applicants:* S.D. Warren Company. *Description:* SD Warren Company requests for confirmation of Category 1 Status, and waiver of notice requirement of tariff amendments under the Commission's Orders 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0102. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-412-002; ER08-200-002; ER06-1291-002; ER07-565-001; ER07-566-001. *Applicants:* Waterbury Generation, LLC, MT. Tom Generating Company LLC, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, FirstLight Power Resources Management, L, ECP Energy I, LLC. *Description:* Waterbury Generation, LLC et al. submits an updated market power analysis to conform to the requirements of Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-466-002. *Applicants:* MET MA, LLC. *Description:* MET MA, LLC submits Order 697 compliance filing and Application for Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-515-001. *Applicants:* Domtar Corporation. *Description:* Domtar Corp. submits its Triennial Market Power Update and amendments to its Market-Based Rate Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0091. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-818-001. *Applicants:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership. *Description:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership submits Order 697 compliance filing and Application for Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-100-002; ER07-265-002. *Applicants:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC. *Description:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC et al. submits a request for classification of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-125-004. *Applicants:* Luminant Energy Company LLC. *Description:* Petition for determination of status as a Category 1 Seller pursuant to Order 697 re Luminant Energy Company LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-237-001. *Applicants:* Forward Energy LLC. *Description:* Forward Energy LLC submits non-material changes in the characteristics relied upon to grant market-based rate authority to Forward Energy. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-303-003; ER03-1331-005. *Applicants:* Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.; Williams Power Company, Inc. *Description:* Supplemental Information of Williams Gas Marketing, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-338-001. *Applicants:* Nexen Marketing U.S.A. Inc. *Description:* Nexen Marketing USA, Inc submits proposed revisions to Original Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-364-003. *Applicants:* APX, Inc. *Description:* APX, Inc request that the Commission find that it qualifies as a Category 1 seller in accordance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-387-005; ER07-254-008; ER08-912-001; ER08-933-001; ER07-195-008; ER08-934-002; ER07-1378-007. *Applicants:* Casselman Windpower, LLC, Providence Heights Wind, LLC, Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Lempster Wind, LLC, IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc., Locust Ridge II, LLC, Atlantic Renewables Projects II LLC. *Description:* Application for Determination of Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-415-002. *Applicants:* Potomac Electric Power Company. *Description:* Potomac Electric Power Co submits its compliance filing with the required modifications to the Construction Agreement with Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-656-002; ER96-25-033; ER01-1363-011. *Applicants:* Shell Energy North America (U.S.), L.P.; Coral Power, L.L.C.; Coral Energy Management, LLC. *Description:* Shell Energy North American (US), LP et al. submits an updated market power analysis and notice of change in status in compliance with Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-760-002. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits revisions to the ISO Tariff & Revisions to include designation of a TCPM Capacity Resource etc in compliance with the Commission's 3/30/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-780-003. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff in compliance with the 5/30/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-806-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits the Substitute First Revised Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Summit Wind, LLC et al. in compliance with the Commission's 5/28/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1049-001. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 201 to their Open Access Transmission Tariff etc, effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0100. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1050-001. *Applicants:* Dragon Energy LLC. *Description:* Dragon Energy, LLC submits revisions to its application for authorization to make wholesale sales of energy and capacity etc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 11, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1051-001. *Applicants:* NSTAR Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric Company—CWIP Supplement to Annual Informational Filing. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 11, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1125-001. *Applicants:* Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US. *Description:* Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC submits an amendment to its Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1160-000. *Applicants:* Sconza Candy Company. *Description:* Withdrawal of Notification of Succession/Change of Ownership for Sconza Candy Company under ER08-1160. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-5073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1164-000. *Applicants:* Escanaba Paper Co. *Description:* Escanaba Paper Co submits an application for market-based rate authorization and certain waivers and blanket authorizations. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1172-000. *Applicants:* Grand Ridge Energy LLC. *Description:* Grand Ridge Energy LLC submits authorization to make market-based wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services under Grand Ridge's FERC Electric Tariff 1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1174-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Southwestern Electric Power Co submits a notice of cancellation of First revised Rate Schedule 109 et al. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1182-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits revised rate sheets to the Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the City of Industry. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0064. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1183-000. *Applicants:* Portland General Electric Company. *Description:* Portland General Electric Co submits proposed revisions to Schedules 4 and 4-R. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1185-000. *Applicants:* Avista Corporation. *Description:* Avista Corp submits an amended and restated Interconnection and Operating Agreement with Northern Lights, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1186-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Shared Service, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc submits Notice of Cancellation of the Duke Midwest Operating Companies, FERC Electric tariff, First Revised Volume 8. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1187-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Systems, Incorporated. *Description:* American Transmission Systems, Inc submits a Construction Agreement with Northern Lights, Inc. et al. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1188-000. *Applicants:* Central Maine Power Company. *Description:* Central Maine Power Co submits its annual update to the formula rates in Schedule 21-CMP, to be effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1189-000. *Applicants:* IndeckYerkes Ltd Partnership. *Description:* Indeck-Yerkes LP submits an application for order accepting initial tariff and granting Category 1 status pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0155. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1190-000. *Applicants:* RPL Holdings, Inc. *Description:* RPL Holdings, Inc submits its proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2 and supporting cost data under ER08-1190. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1191-000. *Applicants:* The American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of AEP Operating Companies submits a third revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with the City of St Clairsville. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1192-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric Co submits the Facilities Modification and Construction Agreement for Holloman Station et al. upgrades with Public Service Co of New Mexico. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1194-000. *Applicants:* Columbia Energy LLC. *Description:* Columbia Energy LLC submits its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, to be effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1196-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, In submits proposed amendment to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1197-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a notice of cancellation for a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement etc under ER08-1197. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0146. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1198-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Southwestern Electric Power Co submits the actuarial reports with respect to actual post-employment benefits other than pensions etc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0144. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1199-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0143. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1208-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporat. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits a second revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with City of Clyde. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: Docket Numbers: PH08-30-000. *Applicants:* General Electric Company. *Description:* Revised Exemption Notification of General Electric Company. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5157. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16056 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2 July 3, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1489-002. *Applicants:* S.A.C. Energy Investments, L.P. *Description:* SAC Energy Investments, LP submits an updated market power analysis, request for Category 1 Seller, and rate schedule revisions pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-19-004; ER06-761-003; ER08-620-001. *Applicants:* NewPage Energy Services, LLC; Rumford Paper Company; Luke Paper Company. *Description:* NewPage Energy Services, LLC et al. submits the Updated Market Power Analysis proposed tariff amendments pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-234-001; ER04-1222-001. *Applicants:* Deutsche Bank AG; DB Energy Trading LLC. *Description:* Deutsche Bank AG et al. submits an application for designation as Category 1 sellers pursuant to Orders 697 and 697-A compliance filings, in the alternative, providing updated market power analysis, etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-271-001; ER06-270-001. *Applicants:* Solios Power LLC; Solios Asset Management LLC. *Description:* Solios Power, LLC and Solios Asset Management, LLC submits a request for Category 1 Seller Classification and compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0094. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-740-003. *Applicants:* Indeck Energy Services of Silver Springs. *Description:* Indeck Energy Services of Silver Springs, Inc submits an application for determination of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0199. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1399-006. *Applicants:* Sunbury Generation LP. *Description:* Sunbury Generation LP submits its compliance filing pursuant to Order 697 issued by FERC on 6/21/07. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-30-002. *Applicants:* RC Cape May Holdings, LLC. *Description:* RC Cape May Holdings, LLC submits an updated market power analysis in support of its continued authorization to make wholesale sales electric energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rated. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0030. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1019-005; ER07-1020-005; ER07-1021-005. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corp submits amended interconnection agreements with Alliance Energy *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1050-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised sheets to the PJM open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0117. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1088-001. *Applicants:* RBC Energy Services LP. *Description:* RBC Energy Services, LP's Order 697 Compliance Filing Application for Category 1 Status and filing of pro forma tariff changes. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1106-001. *Applicants:* ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC. *Description:* ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC submits request for Category 1 Seller classification in the Northeast region, etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1193-001. *Applicants:* CPV Liberty, LLC. *Description:* CPV Liberty, LLC submits a market power update in compliance with the Commission's order granting CPV Liberty's market-based rate authority, and Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1212-001. *Applicants:* Forked River Power LLC. *Description:* Application of Forked River Power LLC for Finding as a Category 1 Seller. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5153. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1221-004. *Applicants:* Rensselaer Cogeneration LLC. *Description:* Rensselaer Cogeneration LLC submits its market power analysis, together with six clean and six redlined copies of its revised tariff reflecting Category 1 status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0123. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1249-004. *Applicants:* Lockport Energy Associates, L.P. *Description:* Lockport Energy Associates LP submits its triennial market power analysis with respect to its authority to sell energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market based rates. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0114. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1274-001; ER98-564-010; ER05-111-004; ER08-25-003; ER08-26-003; ER08-685-002. *Applicants:* TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC; TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd; TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.; Ocean State Power; Ocean State Power II; TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc. *Description:* TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC et al. submits its updated market power analysis supporting their continued authorization to sell power at market-based rates *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008; 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0201; 20080702-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-274-002. *Applicants:* Juice Energy, Inc. *Description:* Juice Energy, Inc notifies FERC that it is a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-352-002. *Applicants:* S.D. Warren Company. *Description:* S.D. Warren Company requests for confirmation of Category 1 Status, and waiver of notice requirement of tariff amendments under the Commission's Orders 697 and 697-A *Fiiled Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0102. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-412-002; ER08-200-002; ER06-1291-002; ER07-565-001; ER07-566-001. *Applicants:* Waterbury Generation, LLC, MT. Tom Generating Company LLC, FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, FirstLight Power Resources Management, L, ECP Energy I, LLC. *Description:* Waterbury Generation, LLC et al. submits an updated market power analysis to conform to the requirements of Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-466-002. *Applicants:* MET MA, LLC. *Description:* MET MA, LLC submits Order 697 compliance filing and Application for Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-515-001. *Applicants:* Domtar Corporation. *Description:* Domtar Corp. submits its Triennial Market Power Update and amendments to its Market-Based Rate Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0091. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-818-001. *Applicants:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership. *Description:* Indeck-Olean Limited Partnership submits Order 697 compliance filing and Application for Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-100-002; ER07-265-002. *Applicants:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC; Sempra Energy Solutions LLC *Description:* Sempra Energy Trading LLC et al. submits a request for classification of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-125-004. *Applicants:* Luminant Energy Company LLC. *Description:* Petition for determination of status as a Category 1 Seller pursuant to Order 697 re Luminant Energy Company LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-237-001. *Applicants:* Forward Energy LLC. *Description:* Forward Energy LLC submits non-material changes in the characteristics relied upon to grant market-based rate authority to Forward Energy. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-303-003; ER03-1331-005. *Applicants:* Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.; Williams Power Company, Inc. *Description:* Supplemental Information of Williams Gas Marketing, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-338-001. *Applicants:* Nexen Marketing U.S.A. Inc. *Description:* Nexen Marketing USA, Inc submits proposed revisions to Original Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-364-003. *Applicants:* APX, Inc. *Description:* APX, Inc request that the Commission find that it qualifies as a Category 1 seller in accordance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-387-005; ER07-254-008; ER08-912-001; ER08-933-001; ER07-195-008; ER08-934-002; ER07-1378-007. *Applicants:* Casselman Windpower, LLC, Providence Heights Wind, LLC, Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Lempster Wind, LLC, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., Locust Ridge II, LLC, Atlantic Renewables Projects II LLC. *Description:* Application for Determination of Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-415-002. *Applicants:* Potomac Electric Power Company. *Description:* Potomac Electric Power Co. submits its compliance filing with the required modifications to the Construction Agreement with Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0103. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-656-002; ER96-25-033; ER01-1363-011. *Applicants:* Shell Energy North America (U.S.), L.P.; Coral Power, L.L.C.; Coral Energy Management, LLC. *Description:* Shell Energy North American (US), LP et al. submits an updated market power analysis and notice of change in status in compliance with Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-760-002. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits revisions to the ISO Tariff & Revisions to include designation of a TCPM Capacity Resource etc in compliance with the Commission's 3/30/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-780-003. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff in compliance with the 5/30/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0116. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-806-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits the Substitute First Revised Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Summit Wind, LLC et al. in compliance with the Commission's 5/28/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1049-001. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 201 to their Open Access Transmission Tariff etc, effective 8/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0100. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1050-001. *Applicants:* Dragon Energy LLC. *Description:* Dragon Energy, LLC submits revisions to its application for authorization to make wholesale sales of energy and capacity etc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 11, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1051-001. *Applicants:* NSTAR Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric Company—CWIP Supplement to Annual Informational Filing. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 11, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1125-001. *Applicants:* Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US. *Description:* Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC submits an amendment to its Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1160-000. *Applicants:* Sconza Candy Company. *Description:* Withdrawal of Notification of Succession/Change of Ownership for Sconza Candy Company under ER08-1160. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-5073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1164-000. *Applicants:* Escanaba Paper Co. *Description:* Escanaba Paper Co submits an application for market-based rate authorization and certain waivers and blanket authorizations. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1172-000. *Applicants:* Grand Ridge Energy LLC. *Description:* Grand Ridge Energy LLC submits authorization to make market-based wholesale sales of energy, capacity, and ancillary services under Grand Ridge's FERC Electric Tariff 1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0105. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1174-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Southwestern Electric Power Co submits a notice of cancellation of First revised Rate Schedule 109 et al. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1182-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits revised rate sheets to the Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the City of Industry. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0064. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1183-000. *Applicants:* Portland General Electric Company. *Description:* Portland General Electric Co submits proposed revisions to Schedules 4 and 4-R. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1185-000. *Applicants:* Avista Corporation. *Description:* Avista Corp submits an amended and restated Interconnection and Operating Agreement with Northern Lights, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1186-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Shared Service, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc submits Notice of Cancellation of the Duke Midwest Operating Companies, FERC Electric tariff, First Revised Volume 8. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0124. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1187-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Systems, Incorporated. *Description:* American Transmission Systems, Inc submits a Construction Agreement with Northern Lights, Inc et al. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1188-000. *Applicants:* Central Maine Power Company. *Description:* Central Maine Power Co submits its annual update to the formula rates in Schedule 21-CMP, to be effective 6/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1189-000. *Applicants:* Indeck Yerkes Ltd Partnership. *Description:* Indeck-Yerkes LP submits an application for order accepting initial tariff and granting Category 1 status pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0155. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1190-000. *Applicants:* RPL Holdings, Inc. *Description:* RPL Holdings, Inc submits its proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2 and supporting cost data under ER08-1190. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1191-000. *Applicants:* The American Electric Power Service Corp. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of AEP Operating Companies submits a third revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with the City of St Clairsville. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1192-000. *Applicants:* El Paso Electric Company. *Description:* El Paso Electric Co. submits the Facilities Modification and Construction Agreement for Holloman Station et al. upgrades with Public Service Co. of New Mexico. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1194-000. *Applicants:* Columbia Energy LLC. *Description:* Columbia Energy LLC submits its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, to be effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1196-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits proposed amendment to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1197-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits a notice of cancellation for a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement etc. under ER08-1197. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0146. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1198-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Southwestern Electric Power Co. submits the actuarial reports with respect to actual post-employment benefits other than pensions etc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0144. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1199-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0143. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1208-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Operating Companies submits a second revision to the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with City of Clyde. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: *Docket Numbers:* PH08-30-000. *Applicants:* General Electric Company. *Description:* Revised Exemption Notification of General Electric Company. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5157. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16057 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 July 7, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP08-436-000. *Applicants:* Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. *Description:* Stingray Pipeline Company, LLC submits its rate filing including Appendicies A through E. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0180. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-437-000. *Applicants:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. *Description:* CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits its FERC GAS Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0301. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP06-421-005. *Applicants:* Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. *Description:* Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation submits the Ninth Revised Sheet No. 40N to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, re: Potomac Expansion Project. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0129. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 14, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr. Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16058 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 2 July 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER08-580-001. *Applicants:* Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc. *Description:* Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc submits the updated market power analysis and conforming market-based rate tariff in compliance with the requirements of Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-723-001. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Power and Light Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Power and Light Co submits Second Revised Master Power Supply Agreement that complies with FERC's Order 614. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-746-001. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits their compliance filing providing revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0035. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-763-001. *Applicants:* Appalachian Power Company. *Description:* Appalachian Power Co submits their compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-770-002. *Applicants:* Longview Power, LLC. *Description:* Longview Power LLC submits an updated market power analysis and tariff revisions. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0053. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-813-001. *Applicants:* Otter Tail Power Company. *Description:* Otter Tail Power Co submits their report required by the Commission's 6/5/08 Order. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0022. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-868-001. *Applicants:* Commonwealth Edison Company. *Description:* Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc submits revised Attachment H-13 of the PJM Interconnection, LLC Open Access Transmission Tariff as directed by the 6/17/08 Order etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-900-001. *Applicants:* The Potomac Edison Company. *Description:* The Potomac Edison Company submits revision of FERC Rate Schedule 2, Reactive Support and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Services and on 6/25/08 submit the original affidavit of John J Rostock this filing. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008; 06/25/08. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0033; 20080627-0130. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-953-001. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Co submits an errata to the 5/14/08 executed revised Facilities Agreement with City of Oconomowoc. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0064. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-981-001. *Applicants:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Description:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits revised FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 8. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1042-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc supplements its 5/30/08 filing. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0034. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1115-000. *Applicants:* Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative. *Description:* Withdrawal of Application of Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-5056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1121-001. *Applicants:* Royal Bank of Canada. *Description:* Royal Bank of Canada supplements their Application for Order Accepting Initial Rate Schedule FERC 1 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1146-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System, American Transmission Company LLC. *Description:* ATC Management, Inc and Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits proposed Appendix I Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/20/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080624-0033. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 11, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1161-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to Attachment AD of its Open Access Transmission Tariff to modify the Tariff Administration Agreement governing its relationship with the Southwestern Power Administration. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1162-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Grand River Dam Authority. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1163-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed service agreement for network integration transmission service under their Open Access Transmission Tariff with American Electric Power Service Corp et al. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0065. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1165-000. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits Second Revised Sheet 155 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 8, reflecting several changes to their Open Access Transmission Tariff, Attachment C etc. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1166-000. *Applicants:* Hudson Bay Energy Solutions LLC. *Description:* Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC submits notice of cancellation of its Market Based Rate Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 6/27/08. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1167-000. *Applicants:* Kansas City Power & Light Company. *Description:* Kansas City Power & Light Company submits the Revised and Restated Amendatory Agreement 1 to Municipal Participation Agreement with the City of Higginsville, MO. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1168-000. *Applicants:* Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC submits a Notice of Succession to inform the Commission that as a result of a corporate name change, Munnsville has succeeded the market-based rate tariff of Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0007. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1169-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits proposed revisions to their Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0024. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1170-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to Section 6A.2.1 of Schedule 1 of the Amended & Restated Operating Agreement, Second Revised Sheet 10A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, effective 8/26/08. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0006. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1171-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* American Electric Power Company submits notice of Cancellation of First Revised Rate Schedule 86, to be effective 6/31/08. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1173-000. *Applicants:* Energy West Resources, Inc. *Description:* Energy West Resources, Inc submits a notice of cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff Volume 1, effective 6/28/08. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1175-000. *Applicants:* Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. *Description:* Niagara Mohawk Power submits First Revised Service Agreement 339 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 with Carthage Energy LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1176-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits their proposed revised Market Rate Tariff to remove the restrictions that currently exist on their market based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1177-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits proposed revisions to the Coordination Agreement with Manitoba Hydro. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0059. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1178-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits an amendment to the CAISO's Market Redesign and Technology Tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0060. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1179-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits Revised Meter Agency Service Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1180-000. *Applicants:* IPP Energy LLC. *Description:* IPP Energy LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Schedule FERC 1, effective 6/30/08. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1181-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service between SPP as Transmission Provider and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA07-35-001; OA08-68-001. *Applicants:* Cleco Power LLC. *Description:* Compliance Filing of Cleco Power LLC in Response to May 28, 2008 Order under Docket Nos. OA07-35, et al. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-5127. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA07-50-002. *Applicants:* Alcoa Power Generating Inc.—Yadkin. *Description:* Alcoa Power Generating, Inc submits Second Revised Sheet 311 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 3 to its Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to the Commission's 5/27/08 Order under OA07-50. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0004. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* OA08-52-002. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits Attachment Y changes to the 6/18/08 submittal etc. under OA08-52. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll-free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16199 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 July 2, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-105-000. *Applicants:* Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, Reliant Energy New Jersey Holdings, LLC. *Description:* Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC et al. submits Application for Authorization under 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0025. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings: *Docket Numbers:* EG08-76-000. *Applicants:* Windthorst-1, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Windthorst-1, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-5050. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER94-1478-019. *Applicants:* Electrade Corporation. *Description:* Electrade Corp. submits an updated market power analysis and rate schedule revisions pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-1551-020; ER01-615-016; ER07-965-002. *Applicants:* Public Service Company of New Mexico; EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC. *Description:* Public Service Company of New Mexico and EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 6 et al. to the Revised Market-Based Rate Tariffs submitted 6/5/08. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0023. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-1947-022; ER07-1001-001; ER07-1100-001; ER02-1052-008. *Applicants:* LS Power Marketing, LLC; Sugar Creek Power Company, LLC; Entergy Services, Inc.; West Georgia Generating Company, LLC. *Description:* LS Power Development LLC et al. amends the May 2008 Filing and submits Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 in Compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-851-017. *Applicants:* Hydro-Quebec Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. *Description:* HQ Energy Services
(US)Inc. submits an updated market power analysis and conforming market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0016. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER98-830-019; ER03-719-010. *Applicants:* Millennium Power Partners, LP; New Athens Generating Company, LLC. *Description:* New Athens Generating Co., LLC and Millennium Power Partners, LP submits their updated market power analyses triennial report in accordance with Order 697 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0066. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-1757-015; EL05-67-003. *Applicants:* Empire District Electric Company, The. *Description:* The Empire District Electric Company submits its Refund Report. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-5058. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-3168-008; ER04-994-004; ER04-659-009; ER04-657-009; ER04-660-009. *Applicants:* Astoria Generating Company, LP; Boston Generating, LLC; Fore River Development, LLC; Mystic I, LLC; Mystic Development, LLC. *Description:* Astoria Generating Co., LP et al. submits an updated market power analysis and Order 697 and 697-A compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-4102-007. *Applicants:* Milford Power Co., LLC. *Description:* Milford Power Company submits revised market-based tariff sheets reflecting the new tariff requirements established in Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0021. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-447-005. *Applicants:* Black Oak Energy, LLC. *Description:* Black Oak Energy, LLC submits its Order 697 Compliance Filing and application for Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-770-004. *Applicants:* AIG Energy Inc. *Description:* AIG Energy, Inc submits their request for Category 1 Seller classification in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 35.36(a)(2) of FERC's regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-774-008. *Applicants:* Eagle Energy Partners I, L.P. *Description:* Eagle Energy Partners I, LP submits Notice of Non-Material Change in Status to inform the Commission of a non-material change from the characteristics upon which the Commission relied in granting Eagle market-based rate etc. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-31-002; ER07-808-001; ER06-1233-001; ER06-1230-001; ER06-1231-001; ER06-1232-002. *Applicants:* Epic Merchant Energy, L.P.; Epic Merchant Energy CA, LLC; EPIC Merchant Energy Midwest, L.P.; EPIC Merchant Energy NY, L.P.; EPIC NJ PA, L.P. *Description:* EPIC Merchant Energy, LP et al. submits an application for determination of Category 1 Status. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-170-007. *Applicants:* MxEnergy Electric Inc. *Description:* MXenergy Electric Inc submits the regional schedule set in Appendix D-2 of Order 697-A, request for Category 1 Seller classification in accordance with criteria set forth in section 35.36(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0030. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-222-006. *Applicants:* CPV Milford, LLC. *Description:* CPV Milford, LLC submits a market power update in compliance with FERC's Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0027. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-381-002; ER06-914-002; ER06-912-002; ER06-913-002; ER05-1467-001; ER08-632-002; ER08-731-001. *Applicants:* DC Energy, LLC; DC Energy New England, LLC; DC Energy New York, LLC; DC Energy Mid-Atlantic, LLC; DC Energy Midwest, LLC; DC Energy Texas, LLC; DC Energy California, LLC. *Description:* DCE Entitles submits compliance filing, an update market power analysis, and request for determination of Category 1 Seller status. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-235-003. *Applicants:* El Paso Marketing, L.P. *Description:* Petition requesting classification as category 1 seller pursuant to order 697 and market-based rate compliance filings re El Paso Marketing, LP. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0067. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-287-004. *Applicants:* Granite Ridge Energy, LLC. *Description:* Granite Ridge Energy, LLC submits its updated market power analysis (Triennial Report). *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0068. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-330-002. *Applicants:* City Power Marketing LLC. *Description:* City Power Marketing, LLC request for determination by the Commission that it qualifies as a Category 1 Seller pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA etc. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0014. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-493-002; ER05-494-002; ER05-495-002; ER08-901-002. *Applicants:* Saracen Energy LP; Saracen Energy Power Advisors LP; Saracen Merchant Energy LP; Saracen Energy Partners, LP. *Description:* Saracen Energy, LP et al. submits an updated market power analysis and rate schedule revisions. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0066. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1218-003; ER05-1219-003; ER96-149-013; ER97-2414-012; ER00-2887-006; ER06-703-002; ER07-1341-003. *Applicants:* Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C.; Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C.; Dartmouth Power Associates Limited Partn; Lowell Cogeneration Company Limited Part; Newark Bay Cogeneration Partnership, L.P; Pedricktown Cogeneration Company, LP; York Generation Company LLC. *Description:* Bayonne Plant Holding, LLC et al. submits an updated market power analysis in compliance with FERC's Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1262-016; ER06-1093-012. *Applicants:* Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC. *Description:* Flat Rock Windpower, LLC submits an updated market power anlysis in compliance with the requirements of Section 35.37 of the regulations of FERC's Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-386-002; ER02-1632-004; ER03-1088-003; ER05-1280-003. *Applicants:* Direct Energy Services, LLC; Energy America LLC; Direct Energy Marketing Inc.; Strategic Energy LLC. *Description:* Application for determination of category 1 status, providing revised market-based rate tariff sheets and reporting change in facts relating to market-based rate authority re Direct Energy Services, LLC et al. *Filed Date:* 06/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0032. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-713-002. *Applicants:* Weyerhaeuser Company. *Description:* Weyerhaeuser Company submits their triennial market power update and amendments to their market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0028. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1220-001. *Applicants:* USEG, LLP. *Description:* USEG, LLP submits an updated market power analysis and rate schedule revisions. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0038. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1364-001. *Applicants:* International Paper Company. *Description:* International Paper Co submits the triennial market power update and amendments to its market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0029. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-501-009; ER08-649-004; ER06-739-013; ER06-738-013; ER03-983-011; ER07-758-007; ER02-537-015. *Applicants:* Birchwood Power Partners, L.P.; EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC; East Coast Power Linden Holding, LLC; Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.; Fox Energy Company LLC; Inland Empire Energy Center, L.L.C.; Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C. *Description:* GE Energy Financial Services Inc submits Notice of Change in Status. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-5078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-522-003; ER06-1122-003. *Applicants:* Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC; High Trail Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC and High Trail Wind Farm, LLC submits their updated market power analysis in compliance with Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-769-001. *Applicants:* Cedar Rapids Transmission Company, Ltd. *Description:* Cedar Rapids Transmission Co, Ltd submits an updated market power analysis and revised market-based rate tariff. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-892-001. *Applicants:* Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P. *Description:* Louis Dreyfus Energy Services, LP submits an update market power analysis and tariff revisions. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-907-001. *Applicants:* Bruce Power Inc. *Description:* Bruce Power Inc submits an updated market analysis in compliance with requirements of sections 35.37 of the regulations of the FERC etc. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0024. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-936-001; ER07-958-001. *Applicants:* Rumford Power Inc., Tiverton Power Inc.; Rumford Power Inc. *Description:* Rumford Power, Inc et al. submits an updated market power analysis and Appendix B list of generation and transmission assets. *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080701-0025. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-92-005. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co submits Substitute Original Sheet 314F.14, FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 06/26/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080627-0008. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 17, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-394-003. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff to include RAR financial settlement provisions, in compliance with Commission's directives. *Filed Date:* 06/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080626-0062. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16200 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1417-198] Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment July 8, 2008. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879) the Office of Energy Projects has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)for an application filed by Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (licensee) on February 12, 2007, requesting Commission approval to amend the Land and Shoreline Management Plan
(LSMP)for the Kingsley Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1417). The licensee proposes to reclassify certain shoreline lands at Plum Creek reservoir (reservoir) from open-space to residential in order to allow adjacent landowners to apply for shoreline access facilities. The reservoir is located within the Platte River Basin in Dawson and Gosper Counties, near the towns of Lexington and Elwood, Nebraska. The project does not occupy any federal lands. The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from approving the licensee's proposal. The EA finds that approval of the application would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-1417) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. You also may 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, contact FERC Online Support. For further information, please contact Christopher Yeakel by telephone at
(202)502-8132 or by e-mail at *Christopher.yeakel@ferc.gov.* Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16048 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PH08-28-000] Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing July 8, 2008. Take notice that on May 23, 2008, Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and its subsidiary holding companies, filed an application, FERC-65B Waiver Notification, requesting waiver of the accounting, record retention and reporting requirements of sections 366.21, 366.22 and 366.23 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR sections 366.21-366.23. 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 17, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16046 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-71-000] TexMex Energy, LLC; Notice of Filing July 8, 2008. Take notice that on June 19, 2008, TexMex Energy, LLC filed a Petition for Declaratory Order resolving jurisdictional uncertainty regarding the operation and use of the “Eagle Pass DC Tie” between the Electric Reliability Council of Texas Region and the grid controlled by the Comision Federal de Electricidad. 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 15, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16050 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, FRL-8692-2] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Survey (New), EPA ICR Number 2291.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *OW-Docket@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston, Office of Science and Technology, Mail Code 4303T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)566-1014; fax number:
(202)566-1053; e-mail address: *johnston.carey@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 25, 2008 (73 FR 4556), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received comments during the comment period from 35 individuals or organizations including industry representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts. These comments are summarized in this notice and addressed in the supporting statement for this ICR ( *see* DCN 05763). Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire (New). *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 2291.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW. *ICR Status:* This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The Clean Water Act
(CWA)directs EPA to develop regulations, called effluent guidelines, to limit the amount of pollutants that are discharged to surface waters or to sewage treatment plants. Coalbed methane
(CBM)extraction activities accounted for about 9.4 percent of the total U.S. natural gas production in 2006 and are expanding in multiple basins across the United States. EPA's effluent guidelines do not currently regulate pollutant discharges from CBM extraction operations. CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a distinctive production cycle characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which in turn encourages release of gas; a stable stage when quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced declines and water production remains low. Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. EPA identified the CBM sector as a candidate for a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 *FR* 76656; December 21, 2006) and also identified that it would develop an industry questionnaire to support this detailed study and would seek OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). EPA is conducting this review to determine if it would be appropriate to conduct a rulemaking to revise the effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435) to control pollutants discharged in CBM produced water. EPA again announced it will conduct an ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 *FR* 61343; October 30, 2007) and sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) (73 *FR* 4556; January 25, 2008). For each industrial sector, EPA's planning process considers four factors: pollutants discharged, current and potential pollution prevention and control technology options, growth and economic affordability, and implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations to address these factors. EPA plans to collect information on geographical and geologic differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, current regulatory controls, and availability and affordability of treatment technology options. See final 2006 Plan (71 *FR* 76666). Response to the questionnaire will be mandatory for recipients. EPA will administer the questionnaire using its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318. EPA received 35 public comments from industry, landowners, public interest groups, water treatment experts, and Federal agencies in response to its notice on January 25, 2008 (73 *FR* 4556). Industry commenters noted that CBM well circumstances (e.g., produced water quantity and quality, available and applicable produced waste management and control technologies, etc.) are diverse and complex geographically and geologically, and that the initial questionnaire did not address this complexity and variation. These commenters also expressed concerns about the survey burden and about how the Agency would use the data. Several industry comments also indicated that there is a general lack of availability and documentation of common technologies that can be used for CBM produced water. Finally, industry representatives asserted that EPA does not need detailed financial data and technical information requested in the draft questionnaire to determine whether regulations should be developed. Federal agencies requested that EPA develop different groupings for survey respondents to ensure that the survey adequately captures the heterogeneity of different CBM produced waters and industry practices. They also suggested additional questions to the survey to better inform EPA's decision-making (e.g., specifically collect data to assess the amount of open water in acres that could attract migratory aquatic birds). Public interest groups indicated that produced water discharges from CBM production have had both quality and quantity impacts on surface water. They also requested that EPA include questions in the survey to assess the costs to communities of not limiting these discharges. EPA has a summary of the ICR modifications and comment responses in the supporting statement to address these comments ( *see* DCN 05763). *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours for the screener survey response and approximately 80 hours for the detailed survey response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Companies operating wells that produce coalbed methane. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 484. *Frequency of Response:* Once For Screener Survey, Once for Respondents Selected for Detailed Survey. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 40,017. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $2,140,796, includes $28,415 annualized capital and O&M costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 40,017 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the fact that this is a new ICR which identifies this industry for a detailed study for EPA's effluent guidelines planning program. Dated: July 9, 2008. Sara Hisel-McCoy, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E8-16117 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8692-3] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Upcoming Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Particulate Matter Research Centers Program Advisory Panel AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office announces a public meeting of the SAB Particulate Matter
(PM)Research Centers Program Advisory Panel to comment on the Agency's current PM research centers program and provide advice to EPA concerning future structures and strategic direction for the program. DATES: The meeting dates are Wednesday, October 1, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. through Thursday, October 2, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the SAB Conference Center located at: 1025 F Street, NW., Room 3705, Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain further information about this meeting must contact Mr. Fred Butterfield, Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Mr. Butterfield may be contacted at the EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or via telephone/voice mail: 202-343-9994; fax 202-233-0643; or e-mail at *butterfield.fred@epa.gov.* General information about the EPA SAB, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice, may be found on the SAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. This SAB Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. *Background:* In 1998, the Congress directed EPA to establish as many as five university-based PM research centers as part of the Agency's expanded Office of Research and Development
(ORD)PM research program. The first PM Research Centers were funded from 1999 to 2005 with a total program budget of $8 million annually (see: *http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/centers.html).* In the original Request for Applications (RFA), prospective centers were asked to propose an integrated research program on the health effects of PM, including exposure, dosimetry, toxicology and epidemiology. ORD's PM Research Centers program was initially shaped by recommendations from the National Research Council. In 2002, ORD requested that the Science Advisory Board conduct an interim review of EPA's PM Research Centers program, the report from which is found at *http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/6374FD2B32EFE730852570CA007415FE/$File/ec02008.pdf.* This review was instrumental in providing additional guidance to ORD for the second phase of the program (2005-2010). In 2004, ORD held a second competition for the PM Research Centers program. This RFA asked respondents to address the central theme of “linking health effects to PM sources and components,” and to focus on the research priorities of susceptibility, biological mechanisms, exposure-response relationships, and source linkages. From this RFA, five current centers are funded for 2005-2010 with the total program budget at $40 million (see: *http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/centerGroup/19* ). EPA's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), within ORD, requested that the SAB Staff Office form an expert panel to comment on the Agency's current PM Research Centers program and to advise EPA concerning the possible structures and strategic direction for the program as ORD considers funding a third round of air pollution research centers into the future, *i.e.* , from 2010 to 2015. Therefore, in response to this request from NCER, the SAB Staff Office published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 5838) on January 31, 2008, which announced the formation of an SAB *ad hoc* panel for this advisory activity and requested public nominations of qualified experts to serve on this panel. The SAB Staff Office has established the SAB PM Research Centers Program Advisory Panel. This *ad hoc* Panel is comprised of nationally- and internationally-recognized, non-EPA scientists with extensive research program management expertise and experience related to airborne pollution (including PM) and the application of research results in reducing air pollution in protection of human health and the environment. Furthermore, these experts have had direct research experience related to airborne particulate matter. The roster and biosketches of this SAB Panel are posted on the SAB Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* *Technical Contacts:* Any programmatic or technical questions concerning EPA's Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers Program can be directed to Ms. Stacey Katz, NCER, at phone: 202-343-9855, or e-mail: *katz.stacey@epa.gov;* Ms. Gail Robarge, NCER, at phone: 202-343-9857, or e-mail: *robarge.gail@epa.gov;* or to Mr. Dan Costa, ORD's National Program Director for Air Research, at phone: 919-541-2532, or e-mail: *costa.dan@epa.gov.* *Availability of Meeting Materials:* All Agency documents to be discussed during this advisory activity will be available on EPA's “Airborne Particulate Matter Research Centers—New (2005)” Web page at: *http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/centerGroup/19* . The SAB meeting agenda and any other materials for this upcoming public advisory meeting will be available on the EPA Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/casac* in advance of the meeting. *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB Panel to consider on the topics included in this advisory activity and/or group conducting the activity. *Oral Statements:* In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Mr. Butterfield, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail) at the contact information noted above, by September 24, 2008, to be placed on a list of public speakers for the meeting. *Written Statements:* Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by September 24, 2008, so that the information may be made available to the SAB Panel members for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO electronically via e-mail (acceptable file formats: Adobe PDF, MS Word, WordPerfect, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Butterfield at the phone number or e-mail address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: July 8, 2008. Anthony F. Maciorowski, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E8-16118 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8692-4] New York State Prohibition of Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Receipt of Petition and Tentative Affirmative Determination AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the State of New York requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for Hempstead Harbor, Nassau County, New York. The waters of the proposed No Discharge Zone fall within the jurisdictions of the Town of North Hempstead, the Town of Oyster Bay, the County of Nassau, the City of Glen Cove and the Villages of Sea Cliff, Roslyn Harbor, Roslyn, Flower Point and Sands Point. These entities, through the New York Department of State and the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee prepared the application for the designation of a Vessel Waste No Discharge Zone, which was submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). DATES: Comments regarding this tentative determination are due by August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments using one of the following methods: *E-mail: olander.james@epa.gov.* *Fax:*
(212)637-3887. *Mail and hand delivery:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation (8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Olander, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Telephone:
(212)637-3833, Fax number:
(212)637-3887; e-mail address: *olander.james@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the State of New York requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for Hempstead Harbor and its harbors and creeks within the following boundaries: South of a line drawn from Mott Point on the west side of the harbor to a breakwater approximately one-half mile north of Mosquito Cove on the east side of the ha rbor (Lat 40°52′ N, Long 73°40′ W) within the Villages of Sea Cliff, Roslyn, Roslyn Harbor, Flower Point and Sands Point and the City of Glen Cove. New York has provided documentation indicating that the total vessel population is estimated to be 1,350 in the proposed area. Five pumpout facilities are operational in the harbor, these facilities are Tappen Marina, Bar Beach, Brewer's Marina, Sea Cliff Yacht Club, and Glen Cove Yacht Club. In addition to these five pumpout facilities, the Towns of North Hempstead Harbor and Oyster Bay each operate pumpout boats that serve the harbor. Based upon the criteria cited in the Clean Vessel Act and based upon the vessel population, Hempstead Harbor requires approximately three to five pumpout facilities. The harbor has seven facilities operational which satisfies the criteria. Tappen Marina Pumpout is loc ated at 40°50′2.44″ N/73°39′2.93″ W. The pumpout is user operated and available 24 hours per day and 365 days a year. The contact for information on the pumpout is the Town of Oyster Bay Dockmaster or the Parks Commissioner at 516-674-7100 and the facility fee is free. Vessel limitations are 50 feet in length and 10 feet in draft. An onsite septic field is used for disposal, with transport to a wastewater treatment plant as backup. Brewer's Marina is loc ated at 40°51′16.17″ N/73°38′46.51″ W. The pumpout is user operated and available 24 hours per day from April 1 to November 30, seven days a week. The contact for information is the Brewer's Marina at 516-671-5563 and the facility fee is free. Vessel limitations are 40 feet in length and 6 feet in draft. The pumpout facility is directly connected to the Glen Cove wastewater treatment facility. Sea Cliff Yacht Club is loc ated at 40°51′11.03″ N/73°38′59.11″ W and is available Memorial Day through October 15th, 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on weekdays and by appointment on weekends. The contact for information is Jim Kowchesski, Manager, at
(516)671-7374 or the Dockmaster at
(516)671-0193 and the facility fee is $5.00. Vessel limitations are 40 feet in length and 4.5 feet in draft. The pumpout facility discharges to the Glen Cove wastewater treatment facility. The Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Boat operates in Hempstead Harbor and Oyster Bay and is available June through October, Friday through Monday. The contact for information is the Town of Oyster Bay at 516-677-5711 or VHF Channel 9 and the fee is free. No vessel limitations exist. The Roosevelt Marina pumpout is used for disposal sewage from the pumpout boat and the marina pumpout discharges to the Oyster Bay Sewer District wastewater treatment plant. The Town of North Hempstead Pumpout Boat operates in Hempstead Harbor and Manhasset Bay and is available June through September, Wednesday through Sunday. The contact for information is the Town of Hempstead at 516-767-4622 or VHF Channel 9 and the fee is free. No vessel limitations exist. The pumpout boat discharges to the local sewer at Town dock. While Bar Beach and the Glen Cove Yacht Club pumpout facilities are listed in the petition, no information is provided regarding location, contact information or fees. The EPA hereby makes a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for Hempstead Harbor in the County of Nassau, New York. A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter. Dated: June 27, 2008. George Pavlou, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E8-16119 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8692-5] New York State Prohibition of Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Receipt of Petition and Tentative Affirmative Determination AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the State of New York requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for Oyster Bay/Cold Springs Harbor Complex, New York. The waters of the proposed No Discharge Zone fall within the jurisdictions of the Town of Oyster Bay, the Town of Huntington, the Village of Bayville, the Village of Bayville, the Village of Centre Island, the Village of Cove Neck, the Village of Lattingtown, the Village of Laurel Hollow, the Village of Lloyd Harbor, the Village of Mill Neck, the Village of Oyster Bay Cove, the County of Nassau, and the County of Suffolk. These entities submitted an application prepared by Cashin Associates, P.C. for the designation of a Vessel Waste No Discharge Zone. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation certified the need for greater protection of the water quality. DATES: Comments regarding this tentative determination are due by August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments using one of the following methods: *E-mail: olander.james@epa.gov.* *Fax:*
(212)637-3887. *Mail and hand delivery:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation (8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Olander, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Telephone:
(212)637-3833, Fax number:
(212)637-3887; e-mail address: *olander.james@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that a petition has been received from the State of New York requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for Oyster Bay/Cold Springs Harbor Complex and its harbors and creeks within the following boundary: South of a line drawn from Rocky Point on Centre Island in west to Caumsett State Park in the east. The Complex encompasses 6400 acres of open water and intertidal area. The waterbodies included in the Complex are Oyster Bay Harbor between Bayville Bridge and Plum Point on Centre Island, Mill Neck Creek to the west of Bayville Bridge, Cold Spring Harbor south of a line between Cooper Bluff in Cove Neck and West Neck Beach in the Village of Lloyd Harbor, and Oyster Bay between Centre Island and the Lloyd Neck peninsula that connects Oyster Bay Harbor and Cold Spring Harbor to Long Island Sound. New York has provided documentation indicating that the total vessel population is estimated to be 2,000 in the proposed area. Based upon boat census data, approximately 1000 to 1500 vessels would be equipped with a Type III marine sanitation device (holding tank). Four pumpout facilities are operational in the Complex, these facilities are Roosevelt Marina, Powles Marina, Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Barges (2-East and West), and Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Vessel. Based upon the criteria cited in the Clean Vessel Act (a pumpout facility can adequately service 300 to 600 vessels) and based upon the vessel population, the Complex requires approximately three to six pumpout facilities. The harbor has five facilities operational which satisfies the criteria. An additional pumpout boat is available when needed. Roosevelt Marina Pumpout is located at 40° 52.635″ N/73° 31.805″ W. The pumpout is available 24 hours per day and 365 days a year. The contact for information on the pumpout is the Town of Oyster Bay, Roosevelt Marina Pumpout, VHF Channel 9 or 516-797-4110. The facility fee is free. Vessel limitations are 36 feet in length and 4 feet in draft at dead low tide. The collected vessel sewage is discharged to the sewer and treated at the Oyster Bay Sewer District Wasterwater Treatment Plant. Powles Marina Pumpout is at 40° 52′ 31.17″ N/73° 28′ 17.94″ W. The pumpout is available 24 hours per day from Mid-April to October 31, seven days a week. The contact for information is the Powles Marina at 631-367-7670 or VHF Channel 9. The facility fee is free. Vessel limitations are 50 feet in length and 5 feet in draft at low tide. The pumpout facility is serviced by the town sewage truck. Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Barges are located at 40° 52.657″ N/73° 31.456″ W and 40° 52.804″ N/73° 32.264″ W. The barges are available Mid-April through October 31, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The contact for information is Oyster Bay Pumpout Barge on VHF Channel 9. The facility fee is free. Vessel limitations are location dependent. The pumpout barges offload vessel sewage at the Roosevelt Marina Pumpout. The Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Vessel operates in the Complex and is available Mid-April through October 31, Thursday through Sunday, from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. The contact for information is the Town of Oyster Bay Pumpout Vessel on VHF Channel 9. The facility fee is free. The Roosevelt Marina Pumpout is used for disposal sewage from the pumpout boat and the marina pumpout discharges to the Oyster Bay Sewer District wastewater treatment plant. The EPA hereby makes a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor Complex in the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, New York. A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter which may result in a New York State prohibition of any sewage discharges from vessels in for the Oyster Bay/Cold Spring Harbor Complex in the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, New York. Dated: June 27, 2008. George Pavlou, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E8-16120 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Meetings; Sunshine Act Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission. Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 73 FR 38214. Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 10 a.m.-July 9, 2008. Changes: The addition of Item 2 in the Open Session of the Meeting. Item 2—Application of Japan Grace Co., Inc. for a Certificate (Performance) Using an Escrow Agreement as Evidence of Section 3, Public Law 89-777 Financial Responsibility. Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary,
(202)523-5725. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16138 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Monday, July 21, 2008. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov* for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 11, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 08-1439 Filed 7-11-08; 3:10 pm]
Connectionstraces to 38
Traces to 38 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
51 references not yet in our index
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • Pub. L. 99-574
  • Pub. L. 110-69
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • Pub. L. 100-235
  • Pub. L. 107-347
  • Pub. L. 107-231
  • Pub. L. 108-360
  • 15 CFR 296
  • 15 CFR 296.2
  • 15 CFR 296.21
  • 15 CFR 296.22
  • 15 CFR 296.20
  • 15 CFR 296.3
  • 15 CFR 296.5
  • 15 CFR 296.11(b)(3)
  • 50 CFR 216.103
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(2)
  • 50 CFR 206.107
  • 839 F.2d 795
  • 540 F.2d 1141
  • 50 CFR 216.102(a)
  • 350 F.3d 815
  • 371 F.3d 475
  • 50 CFR 216.104(c)
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)(ii)
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)(iv)
  • 50 CFR 216.107(a)(3)
  • 137 F.3d 1146
  • 161 F.3d 1208
  • 284 F.3d 1062
  • 214 F.3d 1135
  • 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 34 CFR 350
  • 34 CFR 86
  • 34 CFR 350.31
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 34 CFR 350.54
  • Pub. L. 92-463
+ 11 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Modifications with Request for Comment
C.F.R.§ 351.107
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.106
C.F.R.§ 351.402
U.S.C.§ 278n
U.S.C.§ 3711a
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. App'x839 F.2d 795
F. App'x540 F.2d 1141
Cites 89 · 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.