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 · 2008-07-17 · Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting announcement

89,283 words·~406 min read·/register/2008/07/17/08-1443

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 138 Thursday, July 17, 2008 Proposed Rules FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 305 [RIN 3084-AB03] Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“Appliance Labeling Rule”) AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting announcement. SUMMARY: Section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the Commission to conduct a rulemaking to consider the effectiveness of current energy labeling for lamps (commonly referred to as “light bulbs”) and to consider alternative labeling approaches.
In response to that directive, the Commission seeks comments on the effectiveness of current labeling requirements for lamp packages and possible alternatives to those requirements. As part of this effort, the Commission will hold a public roundtable meeting on September 15, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Attorney,
(202)326-2889, and Lemuel Dowdy,
(202)326-2981, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. DATES: Comments must be received by September 29, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to “Lamp Labeling, Project No. P084206” to facilitate organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex N), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The Commission’s General Counsel will grant or deny the request, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on: ( *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-lamplabeling* ) and following the instructions on the web-based form. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the ( *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-lamplabeling* ) weblink. You may also visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to read this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and file an electronic comment through that Website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive comments received by the Commission, whether filed in paper or in electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Website, to the extent practicable, at *www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/privacy.htm* . Roundtable time and location: The public roundtable meeting will be held on September 15, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the FTC’s Satellite Building Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Roundtable information: The public roundtable will include participation by selected panelists. Other attendees also will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. There is no fee for attendance. A stenographer will record the proceedings, and the Commission will place the transcription on the public record. The FTC also plans to make this workshop available live via webcast ( *see (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/lamp/index.shtml)).* For admittance to the Conference Center, all attendees must show a valid photo identification such as a driver’s license. The FTC will accept pre-registration for this workshop. Pre-registration is not necessary to attend, but is encouraged. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to lampmeeting@ftc.gov. When you pre-register, we will collect your name, affiliation, and your email address. The Commission will use this information to estimate how many people will attend. We may use your email address to contact you with information about the workshop. Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)or other laws, we may be required to disclose to outside organizations the information you provide. For additional information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see the Commission’s Privacy Policy at ( *www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.* ) The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of this contact information to consider and use for the above purposes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Attorney,
(202)326-2889, and Lemuel Dowdy,
(202)326-2981, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Lamp Labeling The lighting market is changing. Over the next several years, new energy standards mandated by Congress will eliminate low efficiency light bulbs ( *i.e.* , lamps) from store shelves in favor of more energy efficient products. Such products include high-efficiency incandescent lamps, and compact fluorescent lamps ( *i.e.* , compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs) that are widely available now, as well as even more energy efficient products, such as solid-state lighting ( *e.g.* , light-emitting diode
(LED)products). Given these changes, Congress has asked the FTC to consider the effectiveness of current lamp labeling and alternative labeling disclosures to help consumers understand new high-efficiency lamp products. As a first step toward fulfilling this mandate, the Commission is publishing this Notice which provides background about current labeling rules for lamps, the recent Congressional mandate, the purpose of the FTC labeling requirements, and various labeling considerations. This Notice also contains a series of questions related to the effectiveness of current labeling and potential labeling alternatives to aid comment and discussion at the September 15, 2008 meeting. *A. Background on Current FTC Labeling:* Current FTC regulations require that most incandescent and compact fluorescent lamp packages display energy information. 2 In particular, the packages must display the product’s light output (in lumens), energy use (in watts), and lamp life (in hours). 3 The package disclosures must also provide the following statement: “To save energy costs, find the bulbs with the light output you need, then choose the one with the lowest watts.” Additionally, catalog retailers (including websites) must disclose the required label information for the covered lamp products they sell. 4 The current rules do not impose a uniform disclosure format. Instead, the labeling requirements provide manufacturers flexibility regarding the size, font, and style in which the information is presented. 5 2 The FTC issued the current lighting disclosure requirements in 1994 ( *see* 16 CFR §§ 305.15(a),(b), & (c)). *See* 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994). 3 *See* 16 CFR 305.15. A sample of the current label is attached to this Notice. 4 16 CFR 305.20. 5 In addition to the requirements for common household lamps, the Rule directs manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts and luminaires, metal halide lamp fixtures, and certain tube-type (“general service”) fluorescent lamps to mark their products with an encircled “E,” a symbol signifying compliance with DOE minimum efficiency standards. *See* 16 CFR 305.15. Packages for incandescent reflector lamps must also display the encircled “E” and information on light output, energy use, and watts. The Rule also requires manufacturers to “possess and rely upon a reasonable basis consisting of competent and reliable scientific tests” to substantiate the information on their labels. For lamp life and light output representations, the Rule states that the Commission will accept as a reasonable basis, competent and reliable scientific tests conducted according to applicable IES (Illuminating Engineering Society) test protocols that substantiate the representations. 6 The Rule, however, does not require manufacturers to use these protocols. 6 *See* 16 CFR § 305.5. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, the Rule requires manufacturers to derive energy consumption information using specific DOE test procedures (10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, § 430.23(q)). There were no DOE test procedures available for other lighting products when the FTC first published the lamp labeling rules in 1994. *B. Congressional Mandate - Efficiency Standards and Labeling:* The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA)directs the Department of Energy
(DOE)to issue stringent energy efficiency standards for lighting products that will have the effect of phasing out traditional, low-efficiency incandescent lamps from the U.S. market over the next several years. Higher efficiency lamps, such as certain incandescent lamp types, CFLs, and LEDs, that meet the new standards, will take their place. 7 7 The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)is currently supporting domestic research and development for new solid-state lighting technologies. ( *See http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/strategy.html.* ) To address these changes, Congress directed the FTC to consider the effectiveness of current lamp disclosures and to consider whether alternative labeling disclosures would be more effective in helping consumers make purchasing decisions. 8 In particular, the law directs the Commission to consider labeling disclosures that address consumer needs for information about lighting level, light quality, lamp lifetime, and total lifecycle cost. 9 The Commission must complete this effort by June of 2010. 10 8 *See* section 321(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140,324(a)). That provision amends section 324(a)(2)(C) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA)(42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(C)). Additional amendments in EISA redesignate 6294(a)(2)(C) as 6294(a)(2)(D) ( *see* section 324(d) of EISA). 9 The law does not specifically authorize the Commission to require disclosures related to the hazardous content of lamps. 10 Section 321(b) of EISA (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)) also gives the Commission the discretion to “consider reopening the rulemaking not later than 180 days before the [statutorily mandated] effective dates of the standards for general service incandescent lamps established under section 325(i)(1)(A) [and implemented by DOE], if the Commission determines that further labeling changes are needed to help consumers understand lamp alternatives.” The EISA amendments also provide the Commission with discretion to require labeling for any consumer product not specified in the current labeling statute, if the Commission determines such labeling is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. 11 Accordingly, the Commission now has the authority to require energy disclosures for consumer products that use lighting technologies not currently specified in the law ( *e.g.* , solid-state lighting such as LED products). 12 11 The law defines “consumer product” as any article (other than an automobile) which “in operation consumes, or is designed to consume energy” and “which, to any significant extent is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 6291(1). 12 *See* section 325 of EISA ( *see* 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6)). The EISA amendments to EPCA (the energy standards and labeling law) included definitions for solid-state lighting products ( *e.g.* , LED), but did not alter the scope of lighting products for which labeling is required. Therefore, the current law does not specifically direct the FTC to require labeling for solid-state lighting products. ( *See* 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB-DD) and 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1)(B-D)). Finally, we note that EISA (section 321(c)) directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct an annual assessment of the lighting market “to identify trends” and to “better understand the degree to which consumer decisionmaking is based on” the type of information currently appearing on FTC-required labels. EISA requires DOE to provide the results of the assessment to the FTC. The law also requires DOE, in cooperation with the FTC and other agencies, to conduct a “proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education” to help consumers understand the lamp labels and make energy-efficient lighting choices that meet their needs. *C. Purpose of FTC Labeling:* EPCA ( *see* 42 U.S.C. 6294(D)) tasks the FTC with issuing labeling requirements for lighting products that “enable consumers to select the most energy efficient lamps which meet their needs.” The recent EISA amendments add to EPCA’s mandate by directing the FTC to consider alternative approaches that will help consumers understand new lighting products and to allow them to choose products that meet their various needs such as light output, light quality ( *e.g.* , color temperature) and lamp lifetime ( *see* 42 U.S.C. 6294(D)(iii)). To meet these and other related directives under EPCA, the FTC creates labeling programs that help ensure consumers receive truthful, objective information and enable them to choose energy-efficient products that meet their needs. 13 At the same time, the task of promoting energy efficient products falls primarily to other agencies. Most notably, the Environmental Protection Agency and DOE provide the U.S. Government’s imprimatur for high- efficiency products through the successful ENERGY STAR program. 14 The FTC’s labels and the ENERGY STAR program work in tandem to provide a robust source of energy efficiency information to consumers. 13 *See, e.g.* , 72 FR 6836, 6841 (Feb. 13, 2007). 14 *See http://www.energystar.gov.* *D. Labeling Considerations:* Consumers are accustomed to using watts as a means to gauge the expected light output of lamps because the wattage ( *i.e.* , energy use) of incandescent lamps provides a consistent proxy for brightness ( *i.e.* , light output). For example, a consumer may seek a “100-watt” incandescent bulb because it provides the light output they desire for a reading lamp fixture. Conversely, a consumer may choose a “40-watt” incandescent bulb for a hallway or utility room where high light output may not be as important. This approach worked well in a market largely populated by standard incandescent lamps, but the emergence of new, more energy efficient technologies has changed matters. CFLs and solid-state lighting products can provide the same light output as traditional incandescent lamps, but at a fraction of the energy use. A traditional, standard incandescent bulb typically uses 100 watts to provide 1,600 lumens of light output. A CFL, on the other hand, can provide the same light output using only 25 watts, while a solid-state lamp (likely to be widely available in the future) may use even less energy to produce the same brightness. Accordingly, energy use (watts) no longer serves as a reliable proxy for light output. Light output expressed in “lumens” is a more accurate way for consumers to determine the brightness of lamps because it conveys the brightness of lighting products regardless of energy use or the technology upon which the lamp is based ( *e.g.* , incandescent, CFL, or solid-state). Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that consumers continue to look for watts (instead of lumens) as a means to gauge light output when purchasing lamps. Therefore, CFL packages routinely contain conspicuous comparisons to incandescent lamps ( *e.g.* , “this bulb is a ‘100-watt’ equivalent”). With these considerations in mind, as part of this rulemaking, the Commission will consider new labeling approaches that communicate light output in a way that is understandable and useful to consumers. For example, consistent with EISA’s directive, the Commission will consider inclusion of additional lighting characteristics such as light quality ( *e.g.* , color rendering or temperature) to help consumers choose the kind of lighting they prefer. Along with light output and quality, the Commission also will look at new ways of communicating energy use. For example, packages could convey energy use information in terms of operating cost, such as dollars per year or dollars per light output ( *e.g.* , megalumens-hour), a lifecycle cost, 15 or an efficacy factor ( *i.e.* , lumens-per-watt). Packages also could disclose relative energy use through a comparison range, similar to that used on the yellow EnergyGuide labels which the FTC requires on most household appliances. 15 Information about impacts beyond consumers’ operating costs such as costs related to manufacture or disposal. Furthermore, as the Commission weighs possible label changes, there are a variety of alternative formats and disclosures to consider. For example, the FTC could consider requiring a uniform label format rather than the flexible labeling disclosures currently required. The FTC also could consider changing the prominence of certain information on the existing label, such as light output (lumens). In addition, the Commission could consider establishing categories for lamp brightness ( *e.g.* , 1600 lumens = Category A; 1,100 lumens = Category B) to help consumers identify the light output they need. III. Request for Comment The Commission seeks written comments on a series of questions related to lamp labeling issues. These issues include the overall effectiveness of existing disclosures on lamp labels, alternative labeling disclosures, and the labeling of lamp types not currently covered by the Rule. The Commission invites interested persons to submit written comments on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may bear upon the FTC’s labeling requirements. The Commission encourages commenters to respond to the specific questions. However, commenters do not need to respond to all questions. Please provide explanations for your answers and supporting evidence where appropriate. After examining the comments, the Commission will determine whether to propose any specific amendments. A. Current Lamp Labeling To facilitate the Commission’s efforts to examine the effectiveness of the existing labeling program, we request that commenters consider the following questions: 1. *Efficacy of Current Labels* a. How should the Commission measure the effectiveness of current lamp labeling requirements (including required catalog disclosures) in assisting consumer purchasing decisions? For example, should the Commission measure effectiveness by evaluating consumer comprehension of specific label elements, consumer preference for different labels, the impact of labels on consumer product choice, or by other means? b. Are the current labeling requirements effective in providing consumers with useful, accurate information about the energy consumption and energy efficiency of covered products? If so, how? c. Do the current lamp label requirements aid in improving energy efficiency? If so, how? d. Do the current lamp label requirements aid consumers in choosing products that meet their lighting needs other than energy efficiency ( *e.g.* , brightness, color temperature, etc.)? If so, how? If not, why not? e. Should the Commission continue to require manufacturers to have a “reasonable basis” for their energy representations on current labels? Or, should the Commission require a specific test procedure, such as existing DOE test procedures (10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R), for measuring the energy characteristics represented on labels? 2. *Reports, Studies, or Research on Current Labels* a. Do any recent reports, studies, or research provide data relevant to estimating the effectiveness of current energy disclosures on consumer lighting products in the United States? 16 In particular, have any such reports, studies, or research examined the effectiveness of current disclosures compared to alternative formats and approaches? 16 When statistical or scientific data is presented, the Commission requests enough detail about data, study design, statistical analysis, and findings to enable it to understand the methodology that was used to conduct the analysis. b. Are there any recent reports, studies, or research from other countries that the Commission should consider? 3. *Costs and Benefits of Current Labels* a. What are the benefits to consumers, if any, of the current lamp labels? b. What costs, if any, have the current lamp labels imposed on consumers? c. What benefits, if any, have the current lamp labels provided to businesses, and in particular to small businesses? d. What costs, including compliance costs, have the current lamp labels had on businesses, and in particular on small businesses? B. Possible Alternatives to Current Labels To aid the Commission in considering possible changes to current lamp labeling requirements, we request that commenters consider the following questions: 1. *Possible Alternative Information on Labels* a. What changes, if any, should the Commission make to the information on current lighting labels? b. Should the Commission consider requiring descriptors other than those already required ( *i.e.* , lumens, watts, and hours)? For example, should the Commission consider operating costs ( *e.g.* , dollars per year or dollars per megalumen-hour), light quality ( *e.g.* , color temperature and color rendering index), lifecycle costs, an efficacy factor, or some other metric of energy use? If so, why? i. Should the Commission consider labels including the operating cost or lifetime cost of a lamp? If so, how should those figures be calculated? What assumptions regarding discount rates are made with this calculation? ii. Should the Commission consider labels that address light quality? If so, what attributes should they convey ( *e.g.* , color temperature and color rendering index)? Which of these attributes are most important for consumers? iii. Should the Commission consider labels including a range or scale comparing the energy use of similar products? c. If the Commission should require alternative descriptors on labels, for each proposed descriptor: i. How should the descriptor be presented to consumers? ii. Is use of the descriptor applicable to all lighting technologies? iii. Are there existing test procedures or other ways to measure or substantiate the descriptor ( *e.g.* , usage patterns for calculating annual operating costs)? d. Do recent or impending changes in technology affect whether and how the Rule should be modified? If so, which technologies would affect modification and how? e. What other information (other than that required by the Rule), if any, are manufacturers currently providing to consumers through packaging disclosures and other advertising to convey characteristics of light bulbs, such as energy use, lighting level, light quality, lamp lifetime, and total lifecycle cost? f. What modifications, if any, should be made to current “encircled E” labeling requirements for lighting products covered by the Rule such as general service fluorescent lamps (and ballasts) and metal halide lamp fixtures? 2. *Possible Alternative Formats for Labels* a. What changes, if any, should the Commission make to the requirements for the format of lighting disclosures (size, format, color, graphical presentation, etc.)? If appropriate, please provide examples of recommended label designs. b. Should the Commission require a uniform label with specific text styles, sizes, etc. ( *e.g.* , an “EnergyGuide” label for lighting packages)? 3. *Costs and Benefits of Possible Alternative Labels* a. What are the benefits to consumers, if any, of any recommended label alternatives? b. What are the costs to consumers, if any, of any recommended label alternatives? c. What are the benefits to businesses, and in particular to small businesses, if any, of any recommended label alternatives? d. What are the costs, including compliance costs, to businesses, and in particular to small businesses, of any recommended label alternatives? 4. *Consumer Research Concerning Possible Alternative Labels* a. If the Commission were to conduct consumer research on alternative label designs, what questions should be explored? b. Should the Commission explore the effect of various label designs on consumers’ ability to rank products by energy use, efficiency, and operating cost? If so, how? c. Should the Commission explore the impact of different label designs on consumer product choice, product use, and consumer willingness to pay more for more energy efficient products? If so, how? 5. *Other Considerations* a. Are there international laws, regulations, or standards with respect to lamp labeling that the Commission should consider as it explores labeling alternatives? If so, what are they and how do they affect the Commission’s rulemaking? b. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary labeling program covering high efficiency products and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)and DOE. 17 What issues, if any, does the ENERGY STAR program raise with regard to the Commission’s consideration of labeling alternatives? Are there any potential conflicts between ENERGY STAR requirements and possible changes to Commission label requirements? 17 *See http://www.energystar.gov.* c. Should the Commission continue to require catalog sellers (paper catalogs and websites) to provide consumers with the information required for package labels? If so, why? If not, why not? C. Coverage of New Lighting Products The current required disclosures for lumens, watts, and hours apply to compact fluorescent lamps and general service incandescent lamps as those terms are defined in 16 CFR section 305.3. 18 The Rule also requires an encircled “E” for fluorescent ballasts, luminaires, metal halide lamp fixtures, and general service fluorescent lamps. To aid the Commission in considering possible Rule changes to cover additional product types, we request that commenters consider the following questions: 18 As part of this rulemaking, the Commission will need to consider changes to existing definitions in the Rule. For example, section 321(a) of EISA revises the statutory definition of general service incandescent lamps to, among other things, add a lumen range to the definition and to add several categories of lamp types to the list of exclusions. *See* 42 U.S.C. 6291(30). 1. Should the Commission consider issuing labeling requirements for consumer lighting products other than those currently covered by the Rule? If so, which lamp types should be included? 2. If the Commission should consider labeling requirements for other lamp types, are there adequate test procedures in place to measure light output, energy use, life, and any other characteristics of these products that may be relevant to FTC labeling requirements? If so, what are they? 3. If the Commission should consider labeling requirements for other lamp types, are there any issues that would affect labeling for those products? If so, what are those issues and how should the Commission address them? EP17JY08.003 List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 Advertising, Consumer Protection, Energy Conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Lamp Products, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary [FR Doc. E8-16283 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-S INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 19 CFR Part 207 Revised Procedures and Requests for Information During Adequacy Phase of Five-Year Reviews AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The United States International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) proposes to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure to require that responses to notices of institution of five-year reviews be filed within 30 days of publication of the notice, as opposed to the 50-day response period specified in its current rules. It additionally seeks public comment on proposals, which would not require changes in its rules, to seek additional information from interested parties at the institution of five-year reviews, and to seek information from purchasers during the adequacy phase of five-year reviews in certain circumstances. DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received by September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number MISC-024, by any of the following methods: — *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. — *Agency Web Site:* *http://www.usitc.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Web site at *http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm.* — *Mail:* *For paper submission.* U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. — *Hand Delivery/Courier:* U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, from the hours of 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number (MISC-024) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.usitc.gov,* including any personal information provided. For paper copies, a signed original and 14 copies of each set of comments, along with a cover letter stating the nature of the commenter's interest in the proposed rulemaking, should be submitted to Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.usitc.gov* and/or the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. The pertinent docket number is MISC-024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc A. Bernstein, Office of General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3087, or Robert G. Carpenter, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3160. Hearing-impaired individuals can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by visiting its Web site at *www.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding these proposed changes to Commission procedures during the adequacy phase of five-year reviews. This preamble provides background information, a regulatory analysis of the proposed amendment to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, an explanation of the procedural changes proposed, and a description of the proposed amendment to the rules. The Commission encourages members of the public to comment, in addition to any other comments they wish to make on the proposed amendment, on whether the proposed amendment is in language that is sufficiently clear for users to understand. If the Commission decides to proceed with this rulemaking after reviewing the comments filed in response to this notice, the proposed rule revision concerning the period for responding to notices of institution will be published in the **Federal Register** and will be codified in 19 CFR part 207. Background The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, directs the Commission to conduct five-year reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements. 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). Subpart F of Chapter 207 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains regulations concerning procedures the Commission uses in five-year reviews. Under section 207.60(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 207.60(d), the Commission publishes a notice of institution when it institutes five-year review proceedings pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). In the notice of institution, the Commission directs interested parties to provide certain information. Neither the statute nor the Commission's regulations specify the information the Commission requests in the notice of institution. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, however, require that any response to the notice of institution be filed within 50 days after publication of the notice in the **Federal Register** . 19 CFR 207.61(a). In this notice, the Commission seeks comments on two sets of proposed modifications to its procedures in five-year reviews. The first, which does not require a change to the Commission's regulations, would modify the information the Commission requests in the notice of institution. The second proposes to amend section 207.61(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to require that responses to the notice of institution be filed within 30 days after its publication. Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Amendment to the Commission's Rules The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and thus does not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of proposed rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other statute. Although the Commission has chosen to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, the proposed regulation falls within the exemption from the notice requirements imposed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b) for “agency rules of procedure and practice.” The proposed rule does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999). No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* ) because the proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ). Moreover, it is exempt from the reporting requirements of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) because it is a rule of organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. The proposed rule is not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), because it does not contain any new information collection requirement. The information collection requirements that are discussed in this notice are the subject of a generic survey clearance proceeding currently pending before the Office of Management and Budget. See 72 FR 68896 (Dec. 6, 2007). The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency as defined in Executive Order 12866 of Sept. 30, 1993, is exempt from the memorandum dated May 9, 2008, Issuance of Agency Regulations at the End of the Administration. Explanation of Proposed Changes in Commission Data Collection The Commission has modified the information it requests interested parties to provide in response to its notice of institution in only minor respects since it began instituting five-year reviews in 1998. 1 The Commission now seeks to make more substantial changes to its information requests. Based on its decade of experience in conducting five-year reviews, the Commission believes that requesting additional information in its notice of institution will aid it both in deciding whether to expedite a review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)(B) and 19 CFR 207.62 and in conducting expedited reviews. 1 The Commission first published a sample notice of institution in the June 5, 1998, **Federal Register** . 63 FR 30599, 30609-10 (June 5, 1998). Since that time, the only material change the Commission has made to the notice is to request that producers of the domestic like product provide quantity and value data on internal consumption and company transfers. *The Commission is proposing to modify its notice of institution. As illustrated in Appendix A, the revised model notice contains the following additional information requests:* • All interested parties will be requested to provide a listing of the three to five leading purchasers of the domestic like product and the subject merchandise in the U.S. market. • All interested parties will be requested to provide sources of information concerning prices for the domestic like product and the subject merchandise in the U.S. market and other world markets. • Both producers of the domestic like product and producers of subject merchandise will be requested to provide capacity information for the most recent calendar year. • Domestic producers will be requested to provide financial information on their operations producing the domestic like product for the most recent fiscal year, including the value of net sales; cost of goods sold; gross profit; selling, general, and administrative expenses; and operating income. The Commission has two principal objectives in requesting additional information in its notice of institution. First, the Commission believes that the additional information it seeks will better enable it to ascertain whether to expedite a review pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. As explained further below, the Commission believes that asking interested parties to identify three to five leading purchasers will enable it, in certain circumstances, to direct information requests to purchasers for use in the adequacy phase of the review. Second, the Commission seeks to have additional information in those reviews that it does expedite. The Commission believes that requesting additional information concerning capacity, financial performance, and pricing will enable it to achieve this objective. It further believes that the additional data requests it is proposing will not unduly burden interested parties. In those reviews where the Commission does not receive responses to the notice of institution from both domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties, the Commission will transmit brief questionnaires to purchasers shortly after it receives responses to the notice of institution. 2 A sample of this questionnaire appears as Appendix B to this Notice. These questionnaires will ask purchasers to identify significant changes, if any, in supply or demand conditions or the business cycle that have occurred in the United States for the domestic like product, or in world markets for the subject merchandise, since the date the order or suspension agreement under review became effective. 2 When the Commission receives responses to the Notice of Institution from both domestic and respondent interested parties, it typicaly does not require further information to determine whether to conduct a full or expedited review. It such circumstances, it would not normally contemplate circulating the brief questionnaire to purchasers. When there is inadequate response to the notice of institution from an interested party group, the Commission has the authority to conduct an expedited review. The Commission has found, however, that conducting an expedited review is not always appropriate when an interested party group response is inadequate. For example, if there have been major changes in the conditions of competition since the time of the original investigation pertaining to the domestic like product or the subject merchandise in the U.S. market, the subject countries, or worldwide, the Commission may find conducting a full review to be appropriate notwithstanding the inadequate response. The Commission believes that seeking information from purchasers concerning current conditions of competition, and asking purchasers to compare current conditions to those prevailing at the time the order or suspension agreement under review was imposed, will enable it better to ascertain whether it should conduct a full review notwithstanding inadequate response from an interested party group. Explanation of Proposed Change to Commission Rule 207.61(a) The changes proposed above, if implemented, will require the Commission staff to devote additional time during the adequacy phase of five-year reviews to analyze the additional information requested in the notice of institution, to circulate the brief adequacy phase questionnaires to purchasers in appropriate circumstances, and to analyze the responses to the purchaser questionnaires. To permit the Commission staff the additional time it needs to engage in such additional information collection and analysis, the Commission proposes amending section 207.61(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to require that responses to the notice of institution be submitted within 30 days after publication of the notice, as opposed to the current 50 days. The Commission believes that the 30-day period will provide interested parties sufficient time to respond to the notice. Moreover, there will continue to be no need for respondent interested parties to file a response to the Commission's notice of institution in reviews where no domestic interested party has responded to the notice of initiation issued by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), which results in Commerce terminating the review (and revoking any pertinent orders under review) pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). Responses to the Commission's notice will not be due until 10 days after Commerce would notify the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2) that no domestic interested party has responded to Commerce's notice of initiation. Request for Comment The Commission solicits comments from interested parties and practitioners concerning these proposals. All comments should be filed in writing no later than 60 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . With respect to the proposed changes in information collection, the Commission is particularly interested in comments concerning whether the additional information it intends to collect:
(1)Will satisfy the objective of augmenting the record before the Commission when it determines whether to conduct an expedited or full review;
(2)will satisfy the objective of augmenting the record before the Commission in expedited reviews; and
(3)will satisfy the objective of not unduly burdening interested parties and purchasers requested to provide the information. The Commission also seeks comment concerning whether requesting additional or alternative types of information will better enable the Commission to achieve these objectives. With respect to the proposed amendment to Commission rule 207.61(a), the Commission seeks comment concerning whether a 30-day response period will impair interested parties' ability to respond fully to the notice of institution. List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 207 Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 19 CFR part 207 as follows: PART 207—INVESTIGATIONS OF WHETHER INJURY TO DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES RESULTS FROM IMPORTS SOLD AT LESS THAN FAIR VALUE OR FROM SUBSIDIZED EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1336, 1671-1677n, 2482, 3513. 2. Amend § 207.61 by revising paragraph
(a)as follows: § 207.61 Responses to notice of institution.
(a)*When information must be filed.* Responses to the notice of institution shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 days after its publication in the **Federal Register** . Note: The following appendices would not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appendix A Revisions to Notice of Institution Note: The portions of the revised notice of institution that seek information from interested parties are reproduced below. The Commission does not contemplate modifying the introductory portions of the notice. Proposed new information requests are indicated by {bold text surrounded by curved brackets}. These are requests 7, 8, 9b, 9e, and 11b. *Background* .—On DATE, the Department of Commerce issued a countervailing duty order/an antidumping duty order/suspended a countervailing duty/antidumping duty investigation on imports of PRODUCT from COUNTRY (xx FR xxxxx). The Commission is conducting a review to determine whether revocation of the order/termination of the suspended investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. *Definitions* .—The following definitions apply to this review:
(1)*Subject Merchandise* is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.
(2)The *Subject Country* in this review is COUNTRY.
(3)The *Domestic Like Product* is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the *Subject Merchandise* . In its original determination, the Commission defined the *Domestic Like Product* as INSERT DEFINITION. (Add the following if applicable). One Commissioner/Certain Commissioners defined the *Domestic Like Product* differently.
(4)The *Domestic Industry* is the U.S. producers as a whole of the *Domestic Like Product* , or those producers whose collective output of the *Domestic Like Product* constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined the *Domestic Industry* as producers of INSERT DEFINITION. (Add the following if applicable). One Commissioner/Certain Commissioners defined the *Domestic Industry* differently.
(5)The *Order Date* is the date that the countervailing duty order under review became effective/antidumping duty order under review became effective/investigation was suspended. In this review, the *Order Date* is DATE.
(6)An *Importer* is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the *Subject Merchandise* into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. *Participation in the review and public service list* .—Persons, including industrial users of the *Subject Merchandise* and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official recently has advised that a five-year review is no longer considered the “same particular matter” as the corresponding underlying original investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was developed in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics. Consequently, former employees are no longer required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088. *Limited disclosure of business proprietary information
(BPI)under an administrative protective order
(APO)and APO service list* .—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. *Certification* .—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. *Written submissions* .—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is DATE. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is DATE. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response). *Inability to provide requested information* .—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination in the review. *Information To Be Provided In Response To This Notice of Institution:* (Add the following material if more than one like product is involved.) Please provide the requested information separately for each *Domestic Like Product* , as defined by the Commission in its original determinations, and for each of the products identified by Commerce as *Subject Merchandise* . (Add the following material if more than one country is involved.) If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export *Subject Merchandise* from more than one *Subject Country* ; or produce *Subject Merchandise* in more than one *Subject Country* , you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent *Subject Country* . As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1)The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the certifying official.
(2)A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the *Domestic Like Product* , a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the *Subject Merchandise* , a foreign producer or exporter of the *Subject Merchandise* , a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.
(3)A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this review by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4)A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the countervailing duty order/revocation of the antidumping duty order/termination of the suspended investigation on the *Domestic Industry* in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of *Subject Merchandise* on the *Domestic Industry* .
(5)A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the *Domestic Like Product* . Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).
(6)A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the *Subject Merchandise* and producers of the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* that currently export or have exported *Subject Merchandise* to the United States or other countries since the *Order Date* . **{(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the** Domestic Like Product **and the** Subject Merchandise **(including street address, World Wide Web address, and the name, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of a responsible official at each firm).}** **{(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the** Domestic Like Product **or the** Subject Merchandise **in the U.S. or other markets.}**
(9)If you are a U.S. producer of the *Domestic Like Product* , provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year PRECEDING YEAR, { **except as noted** } (report quantity data in MEASUREMENT UNIT and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.
(a)Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the *Domestic Like Product* accounted for by your firm's(s') production; **{(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the** Domestic Like Product (i.e., **the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix)}** ;
(c)the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the *Domestic Like Product* produced in your U.S. plant(s);
(d)the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the *Domestic Like Product* produced in your U.S. plant(s); and **{(e) the value of
(i)net sales,
(ii)cost of goods sold (COGS),
(iii)gross profit,
(iv)selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and
(v)operating income of the** Domestic Like Product **produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include both U.S. and export commercial sales, internal consumption, and company transfers) for your most recently completed fiscal year (identify the date on which your fiscal year ends).}**
(10)If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the *Subject Merchandise* from the *Subject Country* , provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year PRECEDING YEAR (report quantity data in MEASUREMENT UNIT and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.
(a)The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of *Subject Merchandise* from the *Subject Country* accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;
(b)the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of *Subject Merchandise* imported from the *Subject Country* ; and
(c)the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of *Subject Merchandise* imported from the *Subject Country* .
(11)If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* , provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year PRECEDING YEAR (report quantity data in MEASUREMENT UNIT and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.
(a)Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* accounted for by your firm's(s') production; **{(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the** Subject Merchandise **in the** Subject Country (i.e., **the level of production that your establishment(s) could reasonably have expected to attain during the year, assuming normal operating conditions (using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate), normal operating levels (hours per week/weeks per year), time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative product mix); and}**
(c)the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of *Subject Merchandise* and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of *Subject Merchandise* from the *Subject Country* accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.
(12)Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the *Domestic Like Product* that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* , and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the *Domestic Like Product* produced in the United States, *Subject Merchandise* produced in the *Subject Country* , and such merchandise from other countries.
(13)(OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the *Domestic Like Product* and *Domestic Industry* ; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Appendix B Adequacy Phase Purchaser Questionnaire *Definitions.* —The following definitions apply to this request:
(1)*Subject Merchandise* is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department of Commerce.
(2)The *Subject Country* in this review is COUNTRY.
(3)The *Domestic Like Product* is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the *Subject Merchandise* . In its original determination, the Commission defined the *Domestic Like Product* as INSERT DEFINITION.
(4)The *Order Date* is the date that the countervailing duty order under review became effective/antidumping duty order under review became effective/investigation was suspended. In this review, the *Order Date* is DATE. In your responses to the following questions, please identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the *Domestic Like Product* that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* , and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. 1a. Have any changes occurred in technology; production methods; or development efforts that affected the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes. If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 1b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of technology; production methods; or development efforts that will affect the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 2a. Have any changes occurred in the ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production) that affected the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 2b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of the ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production) that will affect the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 3a. Have any changes occurred in factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad) that affected the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 3b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad) that will affect the availability of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 4a. Have there been any changes in the end uses and applications of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, dscuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 4b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of the end uses and applications of the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 5a. Have there been any changes in the existence and availability of substitute products for the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 5b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of the existence and availability of substitute products for the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 6a. Have there been any changes in the level of competition among the *Domestic Like Product* produced in the United States, *Subject Merchandise* produced in the *Subject Country* , and such merchandise from other countries in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 6b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of the level of competition among the *Domestic Like Product* produced in the United States, *Subject Merchandise* produced in the *Subject Country* , and such merchandise from other countries in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. 7a. Have there been any changes in the business cycle for the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* since the *Order Date* ? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, discuss any significant changes, noting the time period and market in which they occurred. 7b. Do you anticipate any changes in terms of the business cycle for the *Domestic Like Product* in the U.S. market or in the market for the *Subject Merchandise* in the *Subject Country* within a reasonably foreseeable time? _No _Yes If your answer is yes, please describe any significant changes and identify the time period and market. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 11, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-16282 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2007-0093] RIN 0960-AG02 Technical Revisions to Overpayment Rules AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: These proposed rules would amend our title II regulations to explicitly provide that we apply an underpayment due an individual to reduce an overpayment to that individual in certain cases. Our title XVI regulations already state this policy. Additionally, these proposed rules reflect our procedures for collecting overpayments when a payment of more than the correct amount is made to a representative payee on behalf of a beneficiary after the beneficiary's death. These proposed rules would clarify that we would collect overpayments in this situation from only the representative payee or his estate but would not collect these overpayments from the representative payee's spouse or from the spouse's estate. DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of four methods—Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-delivery. Commenters should not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which of the following methods you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2007-0093 to ensure that we can associate your comments with the correct regulation: 1. Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* (This is the most expedient method for submitting your comments, and we strongly urge you to use it.) In the “Comment or Submission” section of the Web page, type “SSA-2007-0093”, select “Go,” and then click “Send a Comment or Submission.” The Federal eRulemaking portal issues you a tracking number when you submit a comment. 2. Telefax to
(410)966-2830. 3. Letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703. 4. Deliver your comments to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 922 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. All comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking portal, although they may not appear for several days after receipt of the comment. You may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble. *Caution:* All comments we receive from members of the public are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, you should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available on the Internet. We strongly urge you not to include any personal information, such as your Social Security number or medical information, in your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Silverman, Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
(410)594-2128, for information about these rules. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Explanation of Changes Reducing Overpayments We can apply underpayments to reduce overpayments. 42 U.S.C. 404(a)(1)(A) and 1383(b)(1)(A). Our current title XVI regulations explicitly provide that we “apply any underpayment due an individual to reduce any overpayment to that individual that we determine to exist * * * for a different period, unless we have waived recovery of the overpayment * * *.” 20 CFR 416.543. However, there is no parallel section in our current title II regulations. We propose to modify our regulations to reflect our current process of applying underpayments to reduce overpayments under title II. We propose to amend 20 CFR 404.503 to state that we will apply any underpayment due an individual to reduce any overpayment owed by that individual that we determine to exist for a different period, unless we waive recovery. In cases when the underpaid individual has died, we will make the adjustment before distributing any underpayment according to the priority list in 20 CFR 404.503(b). Overpayments Made to Representative Payees Under title II, we currently collect overpayments from an overpaid beneficiary, from any other beneficiary entitled to benefits based an overpaid beneficiary's earnings, or from the estate of a deceased overpaid individual. 20 CFR 404.502. Under title XVI, we may collect overpayments from the overpaid recipient, his eligible spouse, or the recipient's or eligible spouse's estate if one of them dies before we finish collecting the overpayment. 20 CFR 416.570. When a representative payee receives benefits on behalf of a beneficiary, we generally collect any overpayment using these same procedures. However, when a representative payee receives benefits intended for a beneficiary after the beneficiary has died, the representative payee is liable for repaying the overpayment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 404(a)(2) and 1383(b)(2). While these amendments became effective on December 14, 2000, we are now proposing to update our regulations to reflect these statutory changes. These proposed rules would clarify that we collect these overpayments solely from the representative payee's benefits and his estate. We do not collect from the benefits of the representative payee's spouse, the estate of the spouse, the auxiliaries of the overpaid representative payee, or the deceased beneficiary's estate. We would continue to use all other means for collecting such overpayments allowed by federal law, including cross-program recovery, administrative offset, tax refund offset, administrative wage garnishment, and federal salary offset. See 20 CFR 404.520, 404.527, 404.530, 416.572, 416.580, 416.590, 422.310, and 422.403. For title II, we propose to add a new paragraph, 404.502(a)(3), which would state that we apply the procedures found in paragraph 404.502(a)(1) to recover an overpayment made to a representative payee after the death of a beneficiary. In this situation, we will not recover these overpayments from any other individual entitled to benefits based on the beneficiary's earnings because only the representative payee or his estate is liable for repayment. We also propose to add paragraph 404.502(b)(5) to state that, if an overpaid representative payee dies before we recover the full amount of the overpayment, we would collect the overpayment from the representative payee's estate, but we would not adjust the benefits based on the representative payee's record owed to the representative payee's spouse or children. For title XVI, we propose to redesignate the existing language in 416.570 as paragraph
(a)and to add a new paragraph (b). This new paragraph would provide that some of the procedures in paragraph
(a)would apply to recover overpayments from a representative payee or his estate. We would clarify that we would not adjust benefits owed to the representative payee's eligible spouse or the eligible spouse's estate because only the representative payee is liable. Regulatory Procedures Clarity of These Proposed Rules Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these final rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand. For example: • Have we organized the material to suit your needs? • Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated? • Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand? Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Amended We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these proposed rules do not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Thus, they were not subject to OMB review. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule will impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements requiring OMB clearance. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404 Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security. 20 CFR Part 416 Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Dated: July 10, 2008. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we are proposing to amend subpart F of part 404 and subpart E of Part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart F—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart F of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 204, 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1147 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404, 405(a), 902(a)(5), and 1320b-17); 31 U.S.C. 3720A. 2. Amend § 404.502 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(5) to read as follows: § 404.502 Overpayments.
(a)* * *
(3)If a representative payee receives a payment on behalf of a beneficiary after that beneficiary dies, the representative payee or his estate is solely liable for repaying the overpayment. If the representative payee is entitled to a monthly benefit or a lump sum under title II of the Act at the time we determine that an overpayment exists or at any time thereafter, except as provided in paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this section, we will not pay the monthly benefits or the lump sum to the representative payee until the amount of the overpayment has been repaid. We will make such adjustments against any monthly benefit or lump sum under title II of the Act to which the representative payee is entitled whether payable on the basis of such representative payee's earnings or the earnings of another individual.
(b)* * *
(5)The methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section for overpayments owed by a representative payee for payments made after the beneficiary's death. We will not recover such overpayments from any person other than the individual who was representative payee or his estate, but may be recovered from such other person under § 404.503(b). 3. Amend § 404.503 by adding a second sentence to paragraph
(a)and revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 404.503 Underpayments.
(a)*Individual underpaid is living.* * * * However, if we determine that the individual to whom an underpayment is due also received an overpayment as defined in § 404.501(a) for a different period, we will apply any underpayment due the individual to reduce that overpayment, unless we have waived recovery of the overpayment under the provisions of §§ 404.506 through 404.512.
(b)*Individual dies before adjustment of underpayment.* If an individual who has been underpaid dies before receiving payment or negotiating a check or checks representing such payment, we first apply any amounts due the deceased individual against any overpayments as defined in § 404.501(a) owed by the deceased individual, unless we have waived recovery of such overpayment under the provisions of §§ 404.506 through 404.512. We then will distribute any remaining underpayment to the living person (or persons) in the highest order of priority as follows: PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart E—[Amended] 4. The authority citation for subpart E of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1147, 1601, 1602, 1611(c) and (e), and 1631(a)-(d) and
(g)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320b-17, 1381, 1381a, 1382(c) and (e), and 1383(a)-(d) and (g)); 31 U.S.C. 3720A. 5. Amend § 416.570 by revising the section heading, redesignating the existing text as paragraph (a), adding a heading to redesignated paragraph (a), and adding new paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 416.570 Adjustment.
(a)*General.* * * *
(b)*Overpayment made to representative payee after the beneficiary's death.* A representative payee or his estate is solely liable for repaying an overpayment made to the representative payee on behalf of a recipient after the recipient's death. In such case, we will recover the overpayment according to paragraph
(a)of this section, except that:
(1)We will not adjust any other payment due to the eligible spouse of the overpaid representative payee to recover the overpayment, and
(2)If the overpaid representative payee dies before we complete adjustment, we will not seek to recover the overpayment from the eligible spouse or his estate. [FR Doc. E8-16330 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-103146-08] RIN 1545-BH69 Information Reporting Requirements Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the return and information statement requirements under section 6039 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations reflect changes to section 6039 made by section 403 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. These proposed regulations affect corporations that issue statutory stock options and provide guidance to assist corporations in complying with the return and information statement requirements under section 6039. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103146-08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103146-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov/* (IRS REG-103146-08). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning these proposed regulations, Thomas Scholz at
(202)622-6030 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and/or to request a hearing, Richard Hurst at *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, *Attn:* Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, *Attn:* IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP; Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by September 15, 2008. Comments are specifically requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information; How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. The collection of information in these proposed regulations is in § 1.6039-1 and § 1.6039-2. Section 6039 requires corporations to file an information return with the IRS and furnish a written statement to each employee, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations, regarding:
(i)The corporation's transfer of stock pursuant to the employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b); and
(ii)the transfer of stock by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c). The information on the statements required to be provided by the corporation will be used by employees to complete their income tax returns in the year of the disposition of the stock acquired pursuant to the statutory stock option. The likely respondents are for-profit corporations. *Estimated total annual reporting burden:* 25,000 hours. *Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent:* 30 minutes. *Estimated number of respondents:* 50,000. *Estimated annual frequency of responses:* annually. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background Section 403 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006
(Act)amended the information reporting requirements of section 6039. Prior to its amendment, section 6039 required corporations to furnish a written statement to each employee, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary in regulations, regarding:
(i)The corporation's transfer of stock pursuant to the employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b); and
(ii)the transfer of stock by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c). Corporations must furnish employees with the information statements required by section 6039 on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the statement is required. Prior to the amendment of section 6039 made by the Act, the regulations under section 6039 were last updated in 2004. See TD 9144 (69 FR 46401). As amended by the Act, section 6039 requires corporations to file an information return with the IRS, in addition to providing employees with an information statement, following a stock transfer. The time and manner for filing a return with the IRS, as well as the information to be contained in the return and furnished to employees, is addressed in these proposed regulations. Section 6039, as amended by the Act, applies to stock transfers occurring on or after January 1, 2007. However, in Notice 2008-8, 2008-3 IRB 276 (December 19, 2007) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( *b* )), the IRS waived the obligation to file an information return for 2007 stock transfers governed by section 6039. Explanation of Provisions These proposed regulations describe the information that would be required in the return filed with the IRS and the information statement furnished to employees pursuant to section 6039. There are two sections under these proposed regulations: § 1.6039-1, Returns required in connection with certain options; and § 1.6039-2, Statements to persons with respect to whom information is reported. In crafting these proposed regulations, one principal objective was to require corporations to furnish employees with sufficient information to enable them to calculate their tax obligations upon disposition of the shares acquired by the exercise of a statutory option. Under these proposed regulations, essentially the same information would be reported with respect to the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of an incentive stock option and the transfer of stock acquired pursuant to an employee stock purchase plan. With respect to a transfer of stock upon the exercise of an incentive stock option, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under § 1.6039-1 is sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Therefore, the information that would be required in the information return and the statement furnished to employees under these proposed regulations is generally the same information that is included in the statement furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under § 1.6039-1. With respect to an employee's transfer of stock acquired under an employee stock purchase plan, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations under § 1.6039-1 is not sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Accordingly, these proposed regulations would require that additional information be included in the information return and the statement furnished to employees. As discussed further in the preamble, the IRS will issue two forms with instructions that corporations must use to satisfy the return and information statement requirements under section 6039. 1. Returns Required With Respect to Incentive Stock Options Section 1.6039-1(a) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation that transfers stock pursuant to an employee's exercise of an incentive stock option described in section 422(b) to file a return with respect to each transfer made during a particular year. This return would include the following information:
(i)The name, address, and employer identification number of the corporation transferring the stock;
(ii)If other than the corporation identified in (i), the name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;
(iii)The name, address, and identifying number of the person to whom the share or shares of stock were transferred pursuant to the exercise of the option;
(iv)The date the option was granted to the person;
(v)The exercise price per share;
(vi)The date the option was exercised by the person;
(vii)The fair market value of a share of stock on the date the option was exercised by the person; and
(viii)The number of shares of stock transferred to the person pursuant to the exercise of the option. The information required to be included on the information return pursuant to these proposed regulations is generally the same information that is required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations. However, while the existing regulations require that the corporation report the total cost of all shares acquired, these proposed regulations would require instead that the corporation report the exercise price per share. The exercise price per share, rather than the total cost of all shares acquired, is more readily useable by the employee in calculating the tax obligation when the employee later disposes of some or all of the shares. Returns required by § 1.6039-1(a) must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return is made. Such returns must be made on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and filed in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. The IRS expects to release Form 3921 later this year. 2. Returns Required With Respect to Stock Purchased Under an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Section 1.6039-1(b) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation which records a transfer of the legal title of a share of stock acquired by the employee where the stock was acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option described in section 423(c) to file a return with respect to each transfer made during a particular year. This return would include the following information:
(i)The name, address, and identifying number of the transferor;
(ii)The name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;
(iii)The date the option was granted to the transferor;
(iv)The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted;
(v)The exercise price per share;
(vi)The date the option was exercised by the transferor;
(vii)The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was exercised by the transferor;
(viii)The date the legal title of the shares was transferred by the transferor; and
(ix)The number of shares to which legal title was transferred by the transferor. These proposed regulations would require that all of the information required pursuant to the existing regulations be included on the information statement furnished to employees. However, the information required to be furnished to employees pursuant to the existing regulations is not sufficient to enable the employee to calculate his or her tax obligations upon disposition of the shares. Accordingly, items (iii), (iv), (v),
(vi)and
(vii)in the list in the preceding paragraph would request new information that is not required to be reported under the existing regulations. This additional information, along with the information required under the existing regulations, will enable the employee to determine his or her tax obligations upon the disposition of shares. Returns required by § 1.6039-1(b) must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return is made. Such returns must be made on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and filed in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. The IRS expects to release Form 3922 later this year. 3. Information Statements Required With Respect to Incentive Stock Options Section 1.6039-2(a) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation filing a return under § 1.6039-1(a) to furnish to each employee named in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made to such employee during such year. Each information statement required by § 1.6039-2(a) must be furnished to the employee on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under § 1.6039-1(a) is made. Such information statements must be furnished to employees on Form 3921 (or its designated successor) and be delivered in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. Rules regarding electronic furnishing of the information statements and furnishing the information statement by mail (items addressed under § 1.6039-1(d) and
(f)of the existing regulations) will be set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 (or its designated successor). 4. Information Statements Required With Respect to Stock Purchased Under an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Section 1.6039-2(b) of these proposed regulations would require every corporation filing a return under § 1.6039-1(b) to furnish to each employee named in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made by the employee during such year. Each information statement required by § 1.6039-2(b) must be furnished to the employee on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the return under § 1.6039-1(b) is made. Such information statements must be furnished to employees on Form 3922 (or its designated successor) and be delivered in the manner provided in the instructions thereto. Rules regarding electronic furnishing of the information statements and furnishing the information statement by mail (items addressed under § 1.6039-1(d) and
(f)of the existing regulations) will be set forth in the instructions to Form 3922 (or its designated successor). Proposed Effective Date These regulations under section 6039 are proposed to apply to any stock transfer occurring on or after January 1, 2007. However, corporations are not required to comply with the return requirements of § 1.6039-1(a) and
(b)for stock transfers that occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years. Notwithstanding the waiver of the return requirements for 2007 and 2008 stock transfers, corporations must furnish information statements to employees for such 2007 and 2008 stock transfers. For purposes of furnishing information statements for 2007 and 2008 stock transfers, corporations may rely on § 1.6039-1 of the 2004 final regulations (TD 9144) or § 1.6039-2 of these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the filing of a return with the IRS and the provision of employee statements required under these proposed regulations will impose a minimal administrative burden on small entities. It is estimated that it will take approximately 30 minutes to prepare and provide the information required by these regulations. Further, the information to be provided is readily available. Therefore, an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Comments and Request for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are timely submitted to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written or electronic comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal author of these proposed regulations is Thomas Scholz, Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.6039-1 is revised to read as follows: § 1.6039-1 Returns required in connection with certain options.
(a)*Requirement of return with respect to incentive stock options under section 6039(a)(1).*
(1)Every corporation which in any calendar year transfers to any person a share of stock pursuant to such person's exercise of an incentive stock option shall, for such calendar year, file a return with respect each transfer made during such year. This return must include the following information—
(i)The name, address, and employer identification number of the corporation transferring the stock;
(ii)If other than the corporation identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;
(iii)The name, address, and identifying number of the person to whom the share or shares of stock were transferred pursuant to the exercise of the option;
(iv)The date the option was granted to the person;
(v)The exercise price per share;
(vi)The date the option was exercised by the person;
(vii)The fair market value of a share of stock on the date the option was exercised by the person; and
(viii)The number of shares of stock transferred to the person pursuant to the exercise of the option.
(2)Each return required by this paragraph
(a)shall be made on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and shall be filed in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.
(b)*Requirement of return with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan under section 6039(a)(2).*
(1)Every corporation which in any calendar year records, or has by its agent recorded, a transfer of the legal title of a share of stock acquired by the transferor pursuant to the transferor's exercise of an option granted under an employee stock purchase plan and described in section 423(c) (relating to the special rule where the option price is between 85 percent and 100 percent of value of the stock), shall, for such calendar year, file a return with respect each transfer made during such year. This return must include the following information—
(i)The name, address, and identifying number of the transferor;
(ii)The name, address and employer identification number of the corporation whose stock is being transferred;
(iii)The date the option was granted to the transferor;
(iv)The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted;
(v)The exercise price per share;
(vi)The date the option was exercised by the transferor;
(vii)The fair market value of the stock on the date the option was exercised by the transferor;
(viii)The date the legal title of the shares was transferred by the transferor; and
(ix)The number of shares to which legal title was transferred by the transferor.
(2)Each return required by this paragraph
(b)shall be made on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and shall be filed in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.
(3)A return is required by reason of a transfer described in section 6039(a)(2) of a share only with respect to the first transfer of such share by the person who exercised the option. Thus, for example, if the owner has record title to a share or shares of stock transferred to a recognized broker or financial institution and the stock is subsequently sold by such broker or institution (on behalf of the owner), the corporation is only required to file a return relating to the transfer of record title to the broker or financial institution. Similarly, a return is required when a share of stock is transferred by the optionee to himself and another person (or persons) as joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or tenants in common. However, when stock is originally issued to the optionee and another person (or persons) as joint tenants, or as tenants by the entirety, the return required by this paragraph shall be filed with respect to the first transfer of the title to such stock by the optionee.
(4)Every corporation which transfers any share of stock pursuant to the exercise of an option described in this paragraph shall identify such stock in a manner sufficient to enable the accurate reporting of the transfer of record title to such shares. Such identification may be accomplished by assigning to the certificates of stock issued pursuant to the exercise of such options a special serial number or color.
(c)*Time for filing returns* —(1) *In general* . Each return required by this section for a calendar year must be filed on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the return is required.
(2)*Extension of time.* An extension of time to file returns required by this section may be granted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 and Form 3922.
(d)*Penalty.* For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to file a return under this section, see section 6721.
(e)*Effective/applicability date* —(1) *In general.* Upon the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the rules of this section as a final regulation in the **Federal Register** , these rules will apply as of January 1, 2007.
(2)*Transition period.* Taxpayers are not required to comply with the return requirements of paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section for stock transfers that occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years. **Par. 3.** A new § 1.6039-2 is added to read as follows: § 1.6039-2 Statements to persons with respect to whom information is reported.
(a)*Requirement of statement with respect to incentive stock options under section 6039(b).*
(1)Every corporation filing a return under § 1.6039-1(a) shall furnish to each person whose name is set forth in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made to such person during such year. This statement must include the information described in § 1.6039-1(a)(1).
(2)Each statement required by this paragraph
(a)to be furnished to any person must be furnished to such person on Form 3921, Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b) (or its designated successor) and be delivered at such time and in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.
(b)*Requirement of statement with respect to stock purchased under an employee stock purchase plan under section 6039(a)(2).*
(1)Every corporation filing a return under § 1.6039-1(b) shall furnish to each person whose name is set forth in such return a written statement with respect to the transfer or transfers made by such person during such year. This statement must include the information described in § 1.6039-1(b)(1).
(2)Each statement required by this paragraph
(b)to be furnished to any person must be furnished to such person on Form 3922, Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c) (or its designated successor) and be delivered at such time and in such manner as provided in the instructions thereto.
(3)If the statement required by this paragraph is made by the authorized transfer agent of the corporation, it is deemed to have been made by the corporation. The term *transfer agent* , as used in this section, means any designee authorized to keep the stock ownership records of a corporation and to record a transfer of title of the stock of such corporation on behalf of such corporation.
(c)*Time for furnishing statements* —(1) *In general.* Each statement required by this section to be furnished to any person for a calendar year must be furnished to such person on or before January 31 of the year following the year for which the statement is required.
(2)*Extension of time.* An extension of time to furnish statements required by this section may be granted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures set forth in the instructions to Form 3921 and Form 3922.
(d)*Penalty.* For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to furnish a statement under this section, see section 6722.
(e)*Effective/applicability date* —(1) * In general.* Upon the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the rules of this section as a final regulation in the **Federal Register** , these rules will apply as of January 1, 2007.
(2)*Reliance and transition period.* For stock transfers that are subject to the return requirements under § 1.6039-1(a) and (b), and occur during the 2007 and 2008 calendar years, taxpayers may comply with § 1.6039-1 of the 2004 final regulations (69 FR 46401) or this section. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-16177 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 262 RIN 0596-AB61 Law Enforcement Support Activities AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comment. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to revise regulations at 36 CFR part 262, Subparts A and B, regarding removal of obstructions, impoundment of personal property, payment of rewards, and payment for information or evidence in furtherance of an investigation. The proposed revisions to subpart A would clarify and concisely state the Agency's authority for setting reward amounts and would streamline the rules regarding payment for information and evidence. The proposed revisions to Subpart B would shorten the timeframe for impoundment procedures, change the posting requirement, and allow the Forest Service to retain unclaimed personal property for administrative use. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, *Attention:* Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1103 or by facsimile to
(703)605-5112. Comments also may be submitted via the world wide web/Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* It is not necessary to send by regular mail comments that are sent by electronic mail or by facsimile. Comments should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule. Where possible, reference should be made to the specific section being addressed, and an explanation should be given for any suggested changes. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Comments may be inspected in the Office of the Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff, Room 1015, 1621 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Visitors are encouraged to call
(703)605-4690 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Carpenter, Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff,
(703)605-4731. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service at
(800)877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background On February 16, 1994, the Forest Service published a proposed rule amending 36 CFR parts 261 and 262 (59 FR 7880). The Agency considered comments received on the 1994 proposed rule in developing this proposed rule to amend 36 CFR part 262. At this time, the Agency is not proposing revisions to 36 CFR part 261. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 262, in effect since 1977, govern payment of rewards, payment for information or evidence in furtherance of an investigation, impoundment of property, and removal of obstructions from National Forest System lands. Most of the comments received on the 1994 proposal to amend part 262 involved the meaning of terms used and proposed revisions that would permit the Agency to remove objects that are an impediment or a safety hazard to users of National Forest System lands. The Forest Service also reviewed 36 CFR part 262 to determine its applicability in view of changing laws, resource conditions, and other factors affecting management of National Forest System lands. For example, the structure of the Forest Service's Law Enforcement and Investigations staff changed in 1994 to provide for the Director of the Law Enforcement and Investigations staff to report directly to the Chief, rather than to the Deputy Chief for Administration. Accordingly, this proposed rule would vest the authority to make or approve payment of rewards at 36 CFR 262.2 and payment for information or evidence in furtherance of an investigation at 36 CFR 262.3 with the Director of the Law Enforcement and Investigations staff. The proposed rule also would revise limits on maximum amounts and approval authority for payment of rewards. 2. Section-by-Section Analysis 36 CFR Part 262, Subpart A *Section 262.1 Definitions.* This section would contain definitions of terms pertaining to the law enforcement support activities in 36 CFR part 262, including “camping equipment,” “damaging,” “forest officer,” “law enforcement personnel,” “unauthorized livestock,” and “vehicle.” This section would replace the current § 262.1, which would be redesignated as § 262.2. *Section 262.2 Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecutions.* The Forest Service proposes to redesignate § 262.1, “Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecution,” as § 262.2. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of current § 262.1 set reward amounts for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person for setting on fire or causing to be set on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass on National Forest System or nearby lands. The reward amounts vary depending on whether the fire was willfully set. Paragraph (a)(3) of current § 262.1 sets a reward amount for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person charged with destroying or stealing any property of the United States. The proposed revisions to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) would establish new reward payment limitations. Paragraph (a)(4) of current § 262.1 authorizes payment of a reward for information or evidence in furtherance of an investigation of damage to or theft of all or part of a Pacific Yew tree. This provision was added in 1991 (56 FR 29182, June 26, 1991) to address an increase in theft of and damage to the Pacific Yew. At the time, the Pacific Yew was the only known source of the chemical taxol, which is used to treat cancer. Since taxol is now synthetically produced, the demand for the Pacific Yew no longer exists, and the tree is no longer being damaged or stolen. Consequently, the Forest Service is proposing to remove paragraph (a)(4) from current § 262.1. The Agency is proposing to revise paragraph
(b)of current § 262.1 to contain a cross-reference to 36 CFR 296.17, which, pursuant to Section 8 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA)(16 U.S.C. 470gg), authorizes payment of a reward from a criminal or civil penalty collected under Section 6 or 7 of ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470ee or 470ff) for information or evidence leading to the criminal conviction or civil liability of the person who paid the penalty. Paragraph
(e)of current § 262.1 states: “Applications for reward should be forwarded to the Regional Forester, Research Director, or Area Director who has responsibility for the land or property involved in the trespass.” The proposed rule would amend paragraph
(e)to read: “Applications for a reward should be forwarded to the special agent in charge who has responsibility for investigation of the violation of law.” The Agency is proposing to replace “trespass” with “violation of law” because “trespass” does not encompass the violations of law enumerated in that section. *Section 262.3 Payment for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations.* For simplicity and clarity, the Forest Service is proposing to combine § 262.2, “Purchase of information in furtherance of investigations,” and § 262.3, “Purchase of evidence in furtherance of investigations” into § 262.3, and rename it “Payment for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations.” Proposed new paragraph (a), “Approval of payment,” would establish new dollar limits and delegations of authority to the Chief of the Forest Service for approval of payment for information or evidence in furtherance of an investigation. 36 CFR Part 262, Subpart B The current heading for this subpart is “Impoundments and Removals.” The Agency is proposing to revise the heading for Subpart B to read “Administrative Impoundment and Removal.” This proposed revision would clarify that impoundment and removal under 36 CFR part 262, Subpart B, of animals or personal property on National Forest System lands are administrative remedies governed by Agency regulations, as opposed to impoundment and seizure of property pursuant to arrests and searches, which are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts. *Section 262.12 Impoundment of personal property* . The current regulation sets out the procedure for impounding property that is on National Forest System lands without permission or in violation of law. Paragraph
(b)of this section states: In the event the local Forest officer does not know the name and address of the owner, impoundment may be effected at any time 15 days after the date a notice of intention to impound the property in trespass is first published in a local newspaper and posted at the county courthouse and in one or more local post offices. A copy of this notice shall also be posted in at least one place on the property or in proximity thereto. The Forest Service is proposing to revise paragraph
(b)to allow impoundment 72 hours after a trespass is discovered and to eliminate the posting requirements in the local newspaper, at the county courthouse, and at local post offices. This revision would make the Forest Service's regulations consistent with the regulations of other Federal land management agencies and would allow timely removal of property in trespass, thereby protecting National Forest System lands and resources. Paragraph
(d)of this section states, “If the personal property is not redeemed on or before the date fixed for its disposition, it shall be sold by the Forest Service at public sale to the highest bidder.” The Forest Service is proposing to revise paragraph
(d)to give the Agency the option to retain unclaimed personal property for official use, as provided under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 484(m)), rather than having to offer the property for sale. In many cases, the cost of selling the property exceeds its value, and retention of unclaimed personal property for administrative use by the Forest Service could result in substantial savings to the public. The Agency also is proposing to revise paragraph
(d)to state, per existing authority, that the Federal Government will bill the property owner for costs associated with impoundment, removal, and storage. *Section 262.13 Removal of obstructions.* This section currently provides for removal of vehicles or other objects that create an “impediment or hazard to the safety, convenience, or comfort of other users of the National Forest System.” Current § 262.13 allows a forest officer to remove or have removed to a more suitable place a vehicle or other object that is an impediment or hazard to the safety, convenience, or comfort of other National Forest users. The proposed revision to § 262.13 would add the authority to remove vehicles or other objects that are abandoned or vandalized. This proposed revision would address the increasing number of automobiles and other large objects being left on National Forest System lands. These abandoned objects need to be removed because they invite vandalism and are unsightly. 3. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact This proposed rule would revise law enforcement regulations governing certain activities on National Forest System lands. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. The Agency's assessment is that this proposed rule falls within this category of actions, and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Regulatory Impact This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on regulatory planning and review, as amended by E.O. 13422. It has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor would it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state or local governments. This proposed rule would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor would it raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed rule would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. Moreover, this proposed rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 *et seq.* ). The proposed rule would amend Forest Service law enforcement regulations governing removal of obstructions, impoundment of personal property, and payment of rewards and payments for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation and would not impose any requirements on the public. Accordingly, it has been determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act because the proposed rule would not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it would not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it would not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The Forest Service has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Agency has determined that no further determination of federalism implications is necessary at this time. Moreover, this proposed rule would not have tribal implications per E.O. 131175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required in connection with this proposed rule. No Takings Implications This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630. It has been determined that this proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this proposed rule,
(1)all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this proposed rule or that impede its full implementation would be preempted;
(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and
(3)it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions. Unfunded Mandates Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Agency has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required. Energy Effects This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. The Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O. Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public This proposed rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 262 Investigations, Law enforcement, National forests, Seizures and forfeitures. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service proposes to amend part 262 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 262—LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 1. Revise the authority citation to part 262 to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 470ee, 470ff, 470gg, 472, 551, 559a; 40 U.S.C. 484(m). 2. Revise subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Rewards and Payments Sec. 262.1 Definitions. 262.2 Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecutions. 262.3 Payment for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations. 262.4 Audit of expenditures. 262.5 Disposal of purchased property. Subpart A—Rewards and Payments § 262.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to Subparts A and B: *Camping equipment.* Personal property used in or suitable for camping, including any vehicle used for transportation and all equipment in possession of a person camping, other than food and beverages. *Damage.* To injure, mutilate, deface, destroy, cut, chop, girdle, dig, excavate, kill, or in any way harm or disturb. *Forest officer.* An employee of the Forest Service. *Law enforcement personnel.* An employee of the Forest Service who is a special agent, law enforcement officer, or reserve law enforcement officer. *National Forest System.* As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the “National Forest System” includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system. *Unauthorized livestock.* Any cattle, sheep, goat, hog, or equine that is not authorized by permit to be on National Forest System lands, other than a wild, free-roaming horse or burro as defined in 36 CFR 222.20(b)(13); pack and saddle stock used for noncommercial recreation, travel, or occasional trips; and livestock hauled on an authorized road or trail without an overnight stop on National Forest System lands. *Vehicle.* Any device in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported, including any frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. § 262.2 Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecutions.
(a)Law enforcement personnel may pay up to $50,000 as a reward for information or evidence leading to the conviction of any person for:
(1)Willfully or maliciously setting on fire or causing to be set on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass on National Forest System lands, or on non-National Forest System lands if the fire endangers or injures National Forest System lands or users;
(2)Kindling or causing to be kindled a fire on National Forest System lands or on non-National Forest System lands if the fire endangers or injures National Forest System lands or users; or
(3)Destroying, damaging, or stealing any property of the United States.
(b)See 36 CFR 296.17 for direction on payment of a reward from a criminal or civil penalty collected under Section 6 or 7 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470ee or 470ff) for information or evidence leading to the criminal conviction or civil liability of the person who paid the penalty.
(c)Officers and employees of the United States Department of Agriculture may not receive rewards under this section.
(d)Submit applications for a reward to the special agent in charge who has responsibility for the investigation involved in the violation of law no later than 3 months after the date of conviction of an offender. Applications submitted after that date shall not be considered. To allow all claimants to present their claims within the prescribed limit, the special agent in charge shall not take action with respect to rewards regarding an investigation until 3 months after the date of conviction of an offender.
(e)The special agent in charge reserves the right to refuse payment of a reward when it is determined that collusion or improper methods were used to secure the conviction involved.
(f)The special agent in charge reserves the right to pay only one reward where several persons have been convicted of the same offense or where one person has been convicted of several offenses, but may, depending on the circumstances, determine that payment of a reward for each conviction is justified. § 262.3 Payment for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations.
(a)Law enforcement personnel may pay for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations of felonies and misdemeanors related to Forest Service administration.
(1)Criminal investigators in the GS-1811 series and other law enforcement personnel designated by the Chief of the Forest Service, Director of the Law Enforcement and Investigations staff, or special agent in charge, may, without prior approval, pay up to $1,000 for information or evidence under this section.
(2)Payments over $1,000 and up to $5,000 require prior written approval from the special agent in charge.
(3)Payments over $5,000 and up to $10,000 require prior written approval from the Director of the Law Enforcement and Investigations staff.
(4)Payments over $10,000 require prior written approval from the Chief of the Forest Service.
(b)*Limitations.* Purchase of information or evidence under this section is restricted to furthering investigations of felony and misdemeanor violations. Payments for information or evidence in furtherance of investigations of infractions are not authorized under this section. Employees of the United States Department of Agriculture may not receive payments under this section. 3. Revise the heading to Subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—Administrative Impoundment and Removal 4. Revise the heading to § 262.11 to read as follows: § 262.11 Impoundment of dogs. 5. In § 262.12 revise the heading and paragraphs
(b)and
(d)to read as follows: § 262.12 Impoundment of personal property.
(b)If the local forest officer does not know the name and address of the owner of property in trespass, impoundment may be effected at any time 72 hours after a notice of intention to impound the property in trespass is posted in at least one place in the vicinity of the property.
(d)The owner of impounded property may redeem it by the date set for its disposition, but shall remain liable for all costs associated with its impoundment, removal, transportation, and storage. Impounded property that is not redeemed by the date set for its disposition shall become the property of the United States and may be retained by the Forest Service for official use, sold at public sale to the highest bidder, or otherwise disposed of. When impounded property is sold, the forest officer conducting the sale shall furnish the purchaser with a bill of sale or other written instrument evidencing the sale. The original owner shall remain liable for all costs associated with impoundment, removal, transportation, and storage of the property, minus any amount received from the sale of the property. 6. Revise § 262.13 to read as follows: § 262.13 Removal of obstructions. A forest officer may remove or have removed a vehicle or other object on National Forest System lands that is abandoned or vandalized or that poses an impediment or hazard to the safety, convenience, or comfort of National Forest visitors. Dated: May 30, 2008. Abigail R. Kimball, Chief. [FR Doc. E8-16129 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-1029; FRL-8689-8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Texas. This revision, adopted by Texas on November 15, 2006, and submitted to EPA on December 13, 2006, extends requirements to reduce volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions in the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW)area. Specifically, this revision extends requirements for control of VOC emissions to the five counties that were added to the DFW nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard designation: Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall, and the affected VOC sources will be subject to the same emission limitation, control, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and recording requirements in effect in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties. As a result of this action, these new VOC control requirements will be consistent for all nine counties in the DFW ozone nonattainment area. This revision meets statutory and regulatory requirements, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving this revision pursuant to section 110, 116 and part D of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register.** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-2164; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *belk.ellen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: July 1, 2008. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E8-15728 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R8-ES-2008-0081; 92220-1113-0000-C5] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to remove *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (Peirson's milk-vetch) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Plants under the Endangered Species Act. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the petitioned action is not warranted. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the species. This information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of this species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 17, 2008. ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* , *http://www.fws.gov/endangered* , and *http://www.fws.gov/Carlsbad* . Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above street address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at *FW8cfwocomments@fws.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 * et seq. * ) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that within 12 months after receiving a petition to revise the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants (Lists) that contains substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings:
(a)The petitioned action is not warranted,
(b)the petitioned action is warranted, or
(c)the petitioned action is warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determining whether any species is an endangered or threatened species and expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly in the **Federal Register** . *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (Peirson's milk-vetch) was listed as threatened on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596). At the time of listing, the primary threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was the destruction of individuals and dune habitat from off-highway vehicle
(OHV)use and associated recreational development. On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* dated October 24, 2001, from David P. Hubbard, Ted J. Griswold, and Philip J. Giacinti, Jr. of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, that was prepared for the American Sand Association (ASA), the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (ASA 2001). On September 5, 2003, we announced a 90-day finding in the **Federal Register** that the petition presented substantial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted (68 FR 52784). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we completed a status review of the best available scientific and commercial information on the species, and published our 12-month finding on June 4, 2004 (69 FR 31523). We determined that the petitioned action was not warranted at that time. On July 8, 2005, we received an updated petition to delist *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (Peirson's milk-vetch) that was prepared by David P. Hubbard for the American Sand Association, the Off-Road Business Association, the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, and the American Motorcycle Association District 37 (ASA 2005). On November 30, 2005, we announced our 90-day finding that the updated petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and initiated a status review for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (70 FR 71795). The updated petition claims to “demonstrate, through four years of additional data collection, that the Peirson's milk-vetch is even more abundant than was reported in ASA, et al.'s original petition, and that the plant's population and reproductive capacity are so stable and strong as to warrant delisting” (ASA 2005, p. 5). Included again in the updated petition and its associated documents (ASA 2005) is the assertion made in the ASA 2001 petition that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was listed without the support of abundance data. That assertion was addressed in our June 4, 2004, 12-month finding (69 FR 31523) on their previous petition to delist *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , and the updated petition did not provide any additional information that would alter our previous analysis. All of the information in our prior (June 4, 2004) 12-month finding (69 FR 31523) applies to this action, and the status review provided in this document continues to validate that our original decision to list *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* as a threatened species (63 FR 53596) was not made in error or without supporting data. Species Information Species Description *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (Peirson's milk-vetch) is an erect to spreading, herbaceous, short-lived perennial in the Fabaceae (Pea family) (Barneby 1959, 1964). Plants may reach 8 to 27 inches
(in)(20 to 70 centimeters (cm)) in height and develop taproots (Barneby 1964, pp. 862-863) that penetrate to the deeper, moister sand. According to Phillips and Kennedy (2003), plants largely die back to a root crown in the summer. The stems and leaves are covered with fine, silky appressed hairs. The leaflets, which may fall off in response to drought, are small and widely spaced, giving the plants a brushy appearance. This taxon is unusual in that the terminal leaflet (leaflet at the tip) is continuous with the rachis (the central axis of a compound leaf along which leaflets are attached) rather than articulated with it (Barneby 1959, p. 879; Spellenberg 1993, p. 598). Each flower stalk (classified as a raceme) arises from a point where a leaf joins the stem (axil), and supports 10 to 17 purple flowers (Barneby 1959, p. 879). Taxonomy The taxonomic status of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was discussed in the final listing rule (63 FR 53596). Although originally described at the species rank, Peirson's milk-vetch is currently recognized at the varietal level as *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (Spellenberg 1993, p. 598). Although two other recognized varieties exist for *A. magdalenae* , these taxa are restricted to Mexico. However, recent genetic analysis suggests that Barneby's (1964, pp. 862-863) reduction of *A. peirsonii* to varietal status may be inappropriate and that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* should be recognized as a species [as originally described by Munz and McBurney (Munz 1932, p. 7)] (Porter and Prince 2006, p. 7; 2007, pp. 10-11). Two other *Astragalus* taxa occur in the vicinity of the Algodones Dunes. They are *A. lentiginosus* var. *borreganus* (Spellenberg 1993, p. 597), easily distinguished by its conspicuously broad leaflets, and *A. insularis* var. *harwoodii* (Spellenberg 1993, p. 594), which is easily distinguished by its smaller stature and shorter banner petals. Range and Distribution In the United States, *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is restricted to specific habitat areas within about 53,000 acres
(ac)(21,500 hectares (ha)) in a narrow band running 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest to southeast along the western portion of the Algodones Dunes (= Imperial Sand Dunes) of eastern Imperial County, California, which is the largest sand dune field in North America. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* has also been documented from the Gran Desierto of Sonora, Mexico (Felger 2000, p. 300), from an area south and southeast of the Sierra Pinacate lava field, but the Service has no additional information on the extent of area occupied, the size of the population, or its current condition (see 63 FR 53599). *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was also noted from the Borrego Valley, California, by Barneby (1959, p. 879), but not verified, reproducing population exists (Porter *et al* . 2005, pp. 9-10). Other observations from Yuma, Arizona, and San Felipe, Baja California, Mexico, were based on misidentified specimens (see Porter *et al.* 2005, pp. 9-10, and Phillips *et al.* 2001, p. 7, for detailed accounts). The Algodones Dunes are often referred to as the Imperial Sand Dunes. Nearly all of the lands in the Algodones Dunes are managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)as the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). However, the State of California and private individuals own small inholdings in the dune area. On August 4, 2004, approximately 21,836 ac (8,838 ha) of the 167,800-ac (67,900-ha) ISDRA were designated as critical habitat for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (69 FR 47330). In a September 25, 2006, court order, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the Service to submit a new final critical habitat rule to the **Federal Register** for publication no later than February 1, 2008 ( *Center for Biological Diversity et al.* v. *Bureau of Land Management et al.* , Civ. No. C 03-2509 SI). On February 14, 2008, the Service designated revised critical habitat for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (73 FR 8748). In total, approximately 12,105 ac (4,899 ha) in Imperial County, California, fall within the boundaries of the revised designation of critical habitat. Life History *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* has variously been considered an annual or perennial plant (Munz 1932, p. 7; 1974, p. 432; Barneby 1959, p. 879; 1964, p. 862; Spellenberg 1993, p. 598; Willoughby 2001, p. 21; Porter *et al.* 2005, p. 7). Willoughby (2001, p. 21) observed that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is a short-lived perennial and, as such, its response to rainfall was predictable. Recent evidence confirms this observation (Phillips and Kennedy 2004, p. 5; Groom *et al.* 2007, p. 121) and that, depending upon conditions and germinating time, *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is capable of flowering before it is a year old (Barneby 1964, p. 862; Romspert and Burk 1979 p. 16; Phillips *et al.* 2001, p. 10; Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 22; Porter *et al.* 2005, p. 31). Based on current understanding of the species' life history, sufficient rain in conjunction with cool fall temperatures appears to trigger germination events. Seedlings are often present in suitable habitat throughout the dunes, especially during above-normal precipitation years. In intervening dry years, plant numbers decrease as individuals die and are not replaced by new seedlings. Porter *et al* . (2005, p. 35) estimated that a total or near-total failure of seedling recruitment occurs 20 percent of the time (once every 5 years). This species likely depends on the production of seeds in the wetter years and the persistence of the seed bank from previous years to survive until appropriate conditions for germination occur again. However, individual plants that perennate (i.e., survive from year to year with a period of reduced activity) likely give “continuity” to the presence of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* through years of low recruitment (Beatley 1970, p. 331). If winter rains begin in early November, seeds germinating in early December may develop rapidly to produce flowering plants by February and set seed in March (Barneby 1964, p. 862; Romspert and Burk 1979, pp. 15-16). In wetter years, a second germination event may occur in late winter (Phillips *et al.* 2001, p. 10; Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 22), but these plants often fail to reproduce and die in large numbers at the onset of summer drought (Phillips *et al.* 2001, p. 10; Phillips and Kennedy 2003, p. 20). If winter rains do not occur until late January, sufficient soil moisture or time may not exist for young plants to develop the root structure needed to flower and set seeds before the onset of desiccating summer heat. Young plants often die during summer drought in significant numbers probably because such plants lack a sufficiently developed root system to tap water at lower horizons, i.e. deeper soil layers. Older plants also die during this period. However, some plants develop an adequate root system and perennate to live 2 to 3 years. Some perennial individuals will flower and produce seeds in years with no precipitation (Phillips and Kennedy 2006, pp. 5, 9; USFWS 2007, pp. 13, 15), thereby assuring the continuity of the seed bank. Years with optimal or prolonged precipitation may experience two or more germinations and increased seed production (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 20). Plants, regardless of age, may flower from as early as mid-November through May (Barneby 1964, p. 862; Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 2; Porter *et al.* 2005, p. 11). The onset of germination and flowering are expected to vary from year to year depending upon the timing of winter rains. As a result, the life stages are coincident with cooler temperatures and a likely hydrated dune substrate. Barneby (1964, p. 862), Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 22), and Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 34) recorded plants that germinate in November can produce fruit in as little as 3 months. Mature fruits are found on plants from the beginning of February to late June (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 13; Porter *et al.* 2005, pp. 22-24; Romspert and Burk 1979, p. 16), with peak production occurring in March and April (USFWS 2007, Figure 6). Not all plants, even those seemingly capable of flowering and even under favorable conditions, flower in a given year (Phillips and Kennedy 2003, p. 20; Willoughby 2005b, p. 11; USFWS 2007, p. 15). In 2005, the BLM surveys recorded that 75 percent of all plants counted flowered (Willoughby 2005b, p. 11), while the Service recorded 54 percent of plants flowered during the 2006 surveys (USFWS 2007, p. 15). Smaller first season specimens, if flowering, produce relatively few flowers and contribute little to the seed bank of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* compared with larger, older individuals that have more flowers (Romspert and Burk 1979, p. 19; Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 20). In low rainfall years, the reproductive output of older plants may range from as few as one seed pod to hundreds of pods per plant (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, pp. 16-17; USFWS 2007, p. 15). Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 27) estimated that plants counted in the spring 2001 survey averaged five fruits per plant. From a small sample in winter 2001-2002, they calculated that plants about 6 months older had an average of 171 fruits per plant (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27). In the 2006 survey, the Service calculated the median number of pods per plant on plants more than 1 year old at 139 (USFWS 2007, p. 15). Pollination and Breeding System Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 32) identified a white-faced, medium-sized, solitary bee ( *Habropoda pallida* ) as the only effective pollinator of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Otherwise, little is known about the pollination ecology of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Porter *et al.* 's (2005, p. 34) preliminary experiments in the field and under greenhouse conditions indicate that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants are not capable of self-pollination, and thus require pollinators for outcrossing. Moreover, Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 34) reported from microscopic examination of hand-pollinated flowers that pollen from the same flowers did not adhere to the stigmatic surface, while pollen from another plant did adhere. Unless pollen grains adhere, fertilization cannot occur. These results indicate that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* exhibits traits consistent with self-incompatibility (Porter and Prince 2007, pp. 10-11). Self-incompatibility
(SI)is a genetic mechanism in plants that prevents self-fertilization, or fertilization by pollen from plants that share the same SI allele. This means that inbreeding depression is avoided because only pollen from plants that do not share SI alleles with the maternal plant will be able to successfully fertilize eggs (Frankham *et al* . 2002, pp. 37-38; Castric and Vekemans 2004, p. 2873). This observation is a significant consideration for assessing the adequacy of population size, structure, and function. Large populations of standing individuals, with high SI allele diversity, are likely necessary to provide adequate numbers of individuals that can potentially fertilize the available eggs and ensure that seed is produced. In the Algodones Dunes, large SI allele diversity may be necessary spatially across the dunes, and temporally through periods of drought. Further research and modeling are necessary to better understand the dynamics of the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* breeding system and how the species may be responding to natural and man-made disturbances within its range. Seed Biology *Seed development.* The fruits or pods of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* are 0.8 to 1.4 in (2 to 3.5 cm) long, single-chambered, hollow, and inflated. Developing pods contain 11 to 16 ovules (structures containing immature eggs, or seeds, prior to fertilization) (Barneby 1964, p. 862). The seeds, among the largest seeds of any *Astragalus* in North America (Barneby 1964, pp. 862-863), average less than 0.1 ounce
(oz)(15 milligrams (mg)) each in weight and are up to 0.2 in (4.7 millimeters (mm)) in length (Bowers 1996, p. 69; McKinney *et al.* 2006, p. 85). Only a portion of a pod's ovules develop into mature seeds. Some desiccate, while others are lost to insects (McKinney *et al.* 2006, p. 85). Seeds are either dispersed locally by falling from partly opened fruits
(pods)retained on the parent plant or disperse over greater distances by their release from fruits
(pods)blown across the sand after falling from the parent plant. *Seed germination. Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* seeds require no pre-treatment to induce germination, but germination success improved dramatically when the outer seed coat was scarified (e.g., scratched, chipped). Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 29) reported about 99.1 percent of scarified seeds germinated in laboratory trials, while only 5.3 percent of unscarified seeds germinated. However, in artificial dune experiments, Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 29) reported the germination rate dropped to 27 percent. In germination trials conducted by Romspert and Burk (1979, pp. 45-46), 92 percent or more seeds germinated within 29 days at temperatures of 77 °F (25 °C) or less, and no seeds germinated at temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or higher. This observation indicates that seeds on the dunes likely germinate in the cooler months of the year. Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 29) identified the primary dormancy mechanism in *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is the impermeability of the seed coat to water and demonstrated little loss of viability in seeds stored for 5 years. Impermeability of the seed coat to water as a dormancy mechanism is consistent with species having a seed bank (Given 1994, p. 67; Bowers 1996, p. 71). Dispersed seeds that do not germinate during the subsequent growing season become part of the soil seed bank (Given 1994, p. 67). Annual or short-lived perennial plant populations can fluctuate between large numbers of plants to few or even no plants. Many species, and *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* may be one of them, rely on periodic “rescue” episodes from the seed bank where large numbers of plants germinate when conditions are suitable (Elzinga *et al.* 1998, p. 285; Pake and Venable 1996, pp. 1433-1434). Lincoln *et al.* (1993, p. 223) define the soil seed bank as “the store of dormant seed buried in soil,” the store of seeds that do not germinate when otherwise adequate conditions are present. The number of seeds in the seed bank changes, depending upon the balance between processes or factors that remove seeds from the seed bank and those that contribute seeds to it. Deposition to the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* seed bank depends upon standing plants that successfully produce seeds. This deposition is diminished to the extent that plants are precluded from adding seeds to the seed bank (Harper 1977, pp. 457-468; Louda and Potvin 1995, pp. 240-243). Other decreases to the seed bank can be attributed to loss of plants or reduced reproductive output due to herbivory (Louda 1982, pp. 47-49; Baron and Bros 2005, pp. 49-51), direct or indirect OHV damage (Pavlik 1979, pp. 73-85), or environmental conditions (e.g., summer or winter drought, wind blown sand damage, dune shifts, or deep burial) (Baskin and Baskin 2001, pp. 149-160). Increases in the available seed bank can be attributed to rescue episodes in years favorable for reproduction (Pake and Venable 1996, p. 1434). Development of a seed bank and the associated dormancy allows plant species to grow, flower, and set seed in years with most favorable conditions (Given 1994, p. 67). When measuring seed bank dynamics, estimations of the rate of seed mortality and aging, the amount of seed lost to predators, and the variability in germination events are among the information considered necessary to determine the viability and productivity of a seed bank (Elzinga *et al.* 1998, p. 284). Abundance and Population Trend The updated petition (ASA 2005, pp. 11-12, 38-46) asserts that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is abundant and thriving, and therefore should not be listed, and also again asserts that the original listing (63 FR 53596) was made without the support of abundance data. In fact, for a species that fluctuates widely in numbers from year to year, an assessment of abundance may not be the most meaningful measure of the likelihood of persistence. Assessing the population trend, resilience, and long-term viability of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is more relevant but is complex due to
(1)the large fluctuations in numbers of above-ground plants from year to year (often the result of variations in rainfall or other climate conditions from year to year), and
(2)the intricacies associated with studying and understanding seed banks and their dynamics. Although abundance data will not likely completely clarify the likelihood of persistence for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , we review the available data below because it has been the subject of much discussion over recent years. The data presented in this section supports our original decision to list *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* as threatened. In addition, we discuss the suitability of comparing available surveys. This is relevant because multiple years of survey data are needed to detect population trends, and using data from different surveys together to detect a trend can only be legitimately done if the survey methodologies are comparable. Finally, we discuss the available data on seed production and seed bank dynamics, which is also relevant to our analysis of the long-term persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . *Overview of survey data.* A number of abundance surveys have been conducted for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Early surveys incorporated a methodology whereby plants encountered along driving or walking transects covering the entire 167,000 ac (67,900 ha) ISDRA were qualitatively indexed to an abundance value (see WESTEC 1977, Table 2-3) and represented in quadrants measuring 0.45 mile on each side. Analysis of these coarse, dune-wide surveys conducted by WESTEC in 1977, and BLM (Willoughby) in 1998 through 2002, could only provide relative comparisons of mean abundance values between years. In comparing survey results for these years, the species was most abundant in 1998, the highest rainfall year, and least abundant in 2000, the lowest rainfall year (Willoughby 2001, p. 21; 2004, p. 10). Mean abundance values for the years 1998 through 2002 were based upon total plant counts ranging from 86 plants in 2000 to 5,930 plants in 2001 (Willoughby 2004, p. 36). From this comparative analysis, Willoughby (2004, p. 26) determined that there was little change in *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* abundance between 1977 and 2002. In 2001, Dr. Arthur M. Phillips began a multi-year effort to monitor *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* abundance values were tabulated for 4 years: 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In 2001, during an initial reconnaissance of the dunes, Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 6) counted 71,926 *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* from 127 specific locations covering an unspecified area of about 35,000 ac (14,165 ha) (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 8, Appendix A), and they therefore calculated a density of about 2 plants/ac (5/ha). From the 127 locations, Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 10) selected 25 monitoring sites to use for the multi-year effort. The effective area (i.e., the total area represented by data) covered by the 25 sites was about 138 ac (56 ha) (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 9). Phillips and Kennedy reported 30,771 plants in 2001 (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, Appendix A); 33,202 plants in 2003 (Phillips and Kennedy 2003, Appendix A); 77,922 plants in 2005 (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 10); and 1,233 plants in 2006 (Phillips and Kennedy 2006, p. 6) for these 25 monitoring sites. Plant density ranged from 565 plants/ac (1,392/ha) in 2005, to 8.9 plants/ac (22/ha) in 2006. In addition, in 2005 and 2006, Phillips and Kennedy used the data from the 25 monitoring sites to estimate the population for 60 of their original sites at 173,328 and 2,035, respectively (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, p. 11; 2006, p. 6). The BLM embarked on a new sampling methodology in 2004 that sampled a larger portion of the dunes in greater detail (Willoughby 2005a, pp. 1-5), and increased the number of sample transects from 135 in 2004 to 510 for the spring 2005 surveys (Willoughby 2005b, p. 2). Willoughby's (2005a and 2005b) analyses were based upon these sample transects, which were comprised of 37,169 25-by-25-meter sample cells in 2004 (USFWS 2006a, Table 1) and 123,488 sample cells in 2005 (USFWS 2006b, Table 1). Willoughby (2005a, Table 1-1) estimated the total population size at 286,374 plants in 2004, for an estimated density of 5.5 plants/ac (13.5/ha). Plants were most abundant in 2005 in what was an exceptional year with well-timed rainfall and cool temperatures from October 2004 through March 2005 (Willoughby 2005b, p. 6). In 2005, Willoughby (2005b, Table 4) estimated 1,831,076 plants were in the dunes, with an estimated density of 35 plants/ac (86.3/ha). A randomized sample of 2005-occupied cells during the very dry winter and spring of 2006 yielded an estimated population size of 83,451 plants, or 1.5 plants/ac (3.9/ha) (Willoughby 2006, p. 6). The effective area of these surveys covered about 53,000 ac (21,200 ha) and encompassed all BLM management areas containing *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . In 2007, the BLM estimated the population size as 293,102 plants, or 14.2 plants/ac (35/ha), for portions of the Gecko, AMA and Ogilby management areas, with an effective area of 20,692 ac (8,374 ha) (Willoughby 2007, Table 5). However, the precision of the 2006 and 2007 population estimates was poor due to the low numbers of plants sampled and their spatial variability (Willoughby 2006, p. vi; 2007, p. 11). The disparity among these three survey methods and the data collected make it difficult to assess the *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population. As presented in Table 1 below, the 2005 survey conducted by BLM is the most extensive and precise effort to determine overall population abundance and distribution. The amount of data gathered in 2005 was the result of an exceptionally good rainfall year and an extraordinary monitoring effort, and represents the best estimate of the potential population and extent of habitat for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . The year 2006 was exceptionally dry, with no reported *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* germination and few surviving plants from 2005. The 2007 rainfall pattern was not evenly distributed throughout the dunes and contributed to the spatial variability that yielded poor precision for the population estimates of that year (Willoughby 2007, pp. 6-7 and Table 2). Table 1.—Abundance Values Submitted for *A. Magdalenae* var. *Peirsonii* in the Algodones Dunes in 14 Unpublished Reports Year Surveyor No. plants counted Estimated population *x* abundance class No. samples Effective area 1977 WESTEC N/A N/A 4.3 1,611 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 1998 BLM 1 5,064 N/A 6.3 542 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 1999 BLM 1 942 N/A 2.8 542 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 2000 BLM 1 86 N/A 1.1 542 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 2001 BLM 1 5,930 N/A 4.7 542 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 2002 BLM 1 2,297 N/A 3.3 542 167,800 ac (67,900 ha). 2001 Phillips 2 3 71,926 N/A 127 35,000 ac (14,165 ha). 2001 Phillips 2 30,771 N/A 25 138 ac (56 ha). 2003 Phillips 2 33,202 N/A 25 138 ac (56 ha). 2005 Phillips 2 77,922 4 173,328 25 138 ac (56 ha). 2006 Phillips 2 1,233 4 2,035 25 138 ac (56 ha). 2004 BLM 1 25,798 286,374 135 53,000 ac (21,200 ha). 2005 BLM 1 739,805 1,831,076 510 53,000 ac (21,200 ha). 2006 BLM 1 761 83,451 775 53,000 ac (21,200 ha). 2007 BLM 1 1,435 293,102 735 20,692 ac (8,374 ha). 1 BLM reports cited as Willoughby. 2 Phillips reports cited as Phillips et al. or Phillips and Kennedy. 3 Reconnaissance of unspecified area. 4 Estimated population for 60 specific sample sites. As illustrated in Table 1, two substantial issues are associated with the body of survey work for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . These two issues are
(1)comparison of BLM data with WESTEC data and
(2)interpretation of abundance values. Each issue is discussed below. *Comparison of BLM data with WESTEC data* . The first issue concerns the early surveys conducted between 1977 and 2002. Although mean abundance class values were calculated from sample transects across the entire dunes, class values were only comparable between years. It is not appropriate to compare these class values with more recent or finer scale data that is based on counts of plants (rather than abundance classes). Willoughby (2000, p. 7) recognized that the 1998 BLM data, and the data BLM collected through 2002, might not be directly comparable to the 1977 (WESTEC 1977) data (Willoughby 2000, p. 7). Therefore, he (Willoughby 2000, p. 34, and reiterated 2001, p. 28) addressed the limitations of the monitoring data to that point in time by recognizing that statistically significant sample values between 1977 and 1998 were not “proof” that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* had increased significantly. Our assessment of the data indicates that the density classes of WESTEC
(1977)and BLM (Willoughby 1998-2002) are qualitative and are not based on particular numbers of individual plants but rather on the apparent visual density of plants as a feature of the landscape. These reports (WESTEC 1977 and BLM 1998-2002) do not include quantitative measures of density, based upon counts of numbers of plants per unit area. We are not aware of any quantitative measures of density for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* for the years included in these reports. Although Willoughby (2000, p. 7) noted the limitations of the WESTEC
(1977)data, he converted the qualitative measures into quantitative measures for comparison with the BLM survey data in an attempt to assess abundance among years. The magnitude of non-sampling error (subjective errors arising from activities other than sampling or measuring) in the WESTEC
(1977)study, however, makes comparison with the BLM data problematic (L. Ball USFWS *in litt* . 2003, p. 2, comment for ASA
(2001)petition). In addition, peer reviewers also commented on the inappropriateness of comparisons between the BLM study results and those of WESTEC (1977). In his peer review comments for the ASA
(2001)petition, Pavlik ( *in litt* . 2003, p. 3, comment for ASA
(2001)petition) stated that “[a]ny attempt to establish population trends by comparison to the 1977 WESTEC study should be rejected because there is no objective way to replicate with certainty WESTEC's vague and highly subjective relative abundance codes” (see WESTEC 1977, Table 2-3). Climatic variability should also be considered when comparing the 1977 WESTEC study with more recent surveys. Pavlik ( *in litt* . 2003, p. 4, comment for ASA
(2001)petition) stated that rainfall during the October through March period, most critical for germination, was less in 1977 than in 1998, and, therefore, if more plants were present in 1998, it could have been due to increased rainfall rather than lack of OHV impacts. He noted that this was stated explicitly in Willoughby (2000, p. 34), but not in ASA (2001). In her peer review, Bowers ( *in litt* . 2006) noted that the updated petition (ASA 2005, p. 36) stated that despite increasing OHV traffic, *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* rebounded after the 1977 survey made by WESTEC. Bowers ( *in litt* . 2006, pp. 6-7) stated that: at the time of the 1977 surveys, when PMV [ *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* ] was apparently at a low ebb, the southwestern United States had only recently emerged from a long and serious drought [see Swetnam and Betancourt 1998, p. 3131]. This suggests that under relatively light OHV use, PMV is sensitive to severe drought. The post-1977 increase in PMV occurred during the wettest two decades in the twentieth century. In fact, the period from 1976 to 1998 was among the wettest during the past one thousand years [see Swetnam and Betancourt 1998, pp. 3140-3141; Willoughby 2006, Figure 3]. This suggests that PMV thrived under increasing OHV pressure only because climate favored regeneration. I cannot emphasize too strongly that our belief in the resilience of this species is biased by unusually favorable conditions for reproduction in recent years. Kalisz and McPeet (1993, p. 319) note that multiple years of poor conditions magnify this impact on population growth rates and the dormant seed bank. Therefore, the information available to us indicates that using the WESTEC data, in comparison with other data, to assess abundance trends in *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is inappropriate. This suggests that claims of trends of population increases based on comparisons of BLM surveys (Willoughby 2000, 2001, and 2004) and the WESTEC survey
(1977)are not supportable, both because the surveys are not comparable due to differences in methodology and because of climatic variability between the years surveyed (i.e., any increases observed could be due to increases in rainfall in later years rather than to actual increases in numbers of plants). At the time of listing in 1998, the available data (WESTEC 1977) indicated that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was not abundant within the Algodones Dunes, and an analysis of threats to the species, in light of the species' life history traits, indicated that listing the species as threatened was warranted. *Interpretation of abundance values* . The second issue associated with the survey work for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* concerns the abundance values reported from 2001 through 2006 by Phillips *et al.* (2001), Phillips and Kennedy (2003, 2005, and 2006), and Willoughby (2005a, 2005b, 2006, and 2007). The Phillips reports (Phillips *et al.* (2001), Phillips and Kennedy (2003, 2005, and 2006)) and the BLM reports (Willoughby (2005a, 2005b, 2006, and 2007)) used different sampling protocols and estimation procedures. Because the methodologies for these surveys differed from one another, caution should be used in comparing them. Phillips *et al.* 's
(2001)reconnaissance covered an unspecified large area, but observations were reported from only 127 locations (Phillips *et al.* (2001, Appendix A). The 25 monitoring sites established by Phillips and Kennedy (2001, 2002) were subjectively selected for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* presence and not designed to estimate abundance beyond the extent of the 138-ac (56-ha) sampling area (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 10). In contrast, the BLM surveys were designed to estimate the standing *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population (Willoughby 2005a, 2005b, 2006) throughout its entire range in the dunes. Data were compiled in 25-by-25-meter cells derived from transects totaling 577 mi (930 km) in 2004 (Willoughby 2005a, Table 1) and 1,922 mi (3,095 km) in 2005 (Willoughby 2005b, Table 1), covering the full length of the dunes and sampling all micro-habitats along each transect (Willoughby 2005b, pp. 1-3). According to the updated petition, the survey method used by Phillips *et al.*
(2001)“eliminated the need for a sampling methodology and statistical extrapolations” because they counted every plant encountered (ASA 2005, p. 41; Phillips *et al.* 2001, p. 3). At each sample site, “relatively dense” clusters that best fit the requirements of the sampling design were systematically sampled (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 10). In assessing the Phillips survey efforts conducted to date, we focused on Phillips *et al.*
(2001)because this study was the basis for all subsequent field studies conducted by Phillips and Kennedy. Monitoring sites which would be sampled repeatedly over several years (Phillips and Kennedy 2002 through 2006) were randomly chosen from 60 areas designated as sites in Phillips *et al.* (2001). Twenty-five sites (40 percent of designated sites) were selected. As routinely cautioned against in standard sampling or monitoring protocols (e.g., Elzinga *et al.* 1998, p. 64; Thompson *et al.* 1998, p. 12; Morrison *et al.* 2002, pp. 62-63; Ott and Longnecker 2001, p. 21), or protocols for assessing demographics and censusing rare plants (e.g., Falk and Holsinger 1991, pp. 225-238; Pavlik and Barbour 1988, pp. 218-224; others as noted in Porter *in litt* . 2003, p. 1, comment for ASA
(2001)petition), this sampling methodology is subject to introduced selection error. Kalisz ( *in litt* . 2006, p. 6), Converse ( *in litt* . 2006, pp. 2-4), and Porter ( *in litt* . 2003, pp. 1-5, comment for ASA
(2001)petition) commented in their peer reviews on the inappropriate methodology used by Phillips and Kennedy. Specifically, Converse ( *in litt* . 2006, p. 4) noted that Phillips and Kennedy
(2005)calculated plant density “not for a pre-selected area, but for areas that were found to have concentrated numbers of plants, thus leading to seriously inflated estimates.” In fact, density values reported by Phillips and Kennedy
(2005)and Willoughby (2005b) are consistent with the concern that Phillips and Kennedy's estimates may be inflated. Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 11) estimated plant densities of 0.18 to 0.78 plants per square meter (1,800 to 7,800 plants per hectare or 728 to 3,156 plants per acre) as compared to Willoughby's (2005b, p. v.) 2005 estimates of 9 to 53 plants per acre (22 to 132 plants/ha). Only 0.1 percent of the 37,169 cells sampled by BLM in 2004 had a density equal to or greater than 1,800 plants/ha (USFWS 2006a), and 1 percent of the 123,488 cells sampled by BLM in 2005 contained a density equal to or greater than 1,800 plants/ha (USFWS 2006b). The updated petition asserted that plant counts conducted from 1998 to 2005 by Phillips and Kennedy and BLM confirm that the Imperial Sand Dunes support more than 100,000 individual *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* and confirm that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is abundant and thriving throughout the dunes (ASA 2005, p. 46). As noted above, there are weaknesses in the sampling methodology used in Phillips and Kennedy (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006). These weaknesses affect the reliability of the estimates presented in the Phillips and Kennedy reports (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006). However, we do not disagree with the updated petition that the Imperial Sand Dunes can support 100,000 or more individual *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants. The BLM surveys of 2005 confirm this point (USFWS 2006b, Table 2; Willoughby 2005, p. 25). *Distribution of* *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* *in the Algodones Dunes.* The updated petition (ASA 2005, p. 23) cites Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 13) in qualitatively assessing the presence and abundance of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in open versus closed areas. Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 4) stated that a “general reconnaissance of virtually all portions of the dunes outside of the administrative closures and wilderness area was performed” and that “specific survey areas were selected and intensively searched for occurrences.” Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 13), in this reconnaissance, state that they observed *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* colonies that “appeared to be similar in number and abundance” in both the open and closed areas of the dunes. However, this statement is inconsistent with other portions of the report. For example, the report also states that the “area with dense occurrences in the large central closure was perhaps twice the size of the area with sites south of the closure and north of I-8. Although no counts were possible from the helicopter, many sites with large numbers of plants were observed within the closure.” Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 7) also stated that the purpose of the 2001 surveys “was to locate as many occurrences of the subject plants as possible, and to completely census and document reproductive and habitat data from every area in the dune system in which they were found,” but noted that “mappable concentrations of plants were noted * * * in less than 25% of the dunes proper” (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 17). Converse ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 3) noted that some areas were not searched as intensively as others. In sum, it appears that all extant plants were probably not found within the large expanse of the dunes, that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was unevenly distributed in the dunes, and that large concentrations of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* were noticeable within the areas closed to OHV use. Survey efforts to date have clarified the uneven distribution of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* throughout the dunes. Even in the best of years, BLM observed *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in just 21 percent of the sample cells (USFWS 2006b, Table 1). In that year, 2005, half the observed *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , approximately 370,000 plants, occurred in 0.7 percent of the survey area (USFWS 2006b, Table 2) or about 145 acres (58 ha). Just over 11 percent of the survey area, or 54 percent of the occupied area, contained a trace density of plants (less than 39 plants/ac (100/ha)) (USFWS 2006b, p. 3). Further, the Service conducted a Chi-square analysis of BLM's 2005 data which revealed that the odds of finding *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in areas closed to OHV activity was 2.63 times greater than finding it in areas open to OHVs (USFWS 2006b, pp. 3-4). Phillips and Kennedy's 2005 (2005, Appendix A) and 2006 (2006, p. 8) reports further illustrate the fact that dense concentrations of plants produce large quantities of seed pods, which can, in turn, lead to high seed production estimates and high plant persistence in localized areas. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* exhibits high variability in density throughout the dunes, but density is highest in the southern half of the dunes (Willoughby 2005, Table 4; USFWS 2006b, Tables 1 and 2, Map 1). Phillips *et al.*
(2001)established 19 of their 25 monitoring sites in close proximity to areas with high plant density (USFWS 2006b, Map 2). The difference between the current BLM studies and those of Phillips and Kennedy is one of detection rate. BLM systematically sampled the entire dunes and reported a detection rate of 0.21 ( *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* detected in 21 percent of the sample cells) in the best of years (USFWS 2006b, Table 1). Phillips and Kennedy systematically sampled areas selected for plant density yet can neither calculate nor report a rate of detection. Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 10) observed that 70 to 75 percent of the dunes is not suitable habitat for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* This observation closely corresponds to the 79 percent of unoccupied cells sampled by BLM and calculated by the Service (USFWS 2006b, Table 1) for 2005. As noted above, 11 percent of the area surveyed by BLM in 2005 contained a trace density of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii,* suggesting that these areas are marginal habitat that supported plants due to the favorable conditions of 2005. Therefore, optimal habitat for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* may be substantially less than the 21 percent reported (USFWS 2006b). Considering that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* only occurs in the United States within the Algodones Dunes, and only within a small percentage of the dunes, it is a rare plant. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is a relatively rare plant as further illustrated by comparison of its abundance and density to other psammophytic (dune loving) plants. The State endangered *Helianthus niveus* ssp. *tephrodes* (Algodones Dunes sunflower), a psammophytic plant with closely parallel distribution to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii,* was more abundant than *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in nearly all years surveyed (Willoughby 2004, p. 36; Willoughby 2005a, Table 2-1). Pavlik ( *in litt.* 2006) commented on plant densities for common desert *Astragalus* and herbs. As noted by Rundel and Gibson (1996, Table 5.11), density for three *Astragalus* taxa in the Mojave Desert ranged from 400 to 1,200 plants per acre (1,000 to 3,000 plants/ha). Pavlik ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 2) stated that “if any of the densities of established plants of common species * * * were multiplied by the size of their geographic ranges, the total populations would be on the order of 10 8 to 10 10 .” Bowers
(1996)also found similar plant densities for psammophytic dune plants in the Sierra del Rosario Dunes of northern Sonora, Mexico, only 60 miles (100 km) away from the Algodones Dunes and with a similar climate. Density of four annual plant taxa ranged from 1,170 to 11,600 plants/ac (2,900 to 28,700 plants/ha) and for three perennial plants ranged from 5,000 to 6,200 plants/ac (12,500 to 15,400 plants/ha) (Bowers 1996, Table 2). *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii,* with a density of 9 to 53 plants/ac (22 to 132 plants/ha), is 2 to 4 orders of magnitude lower than other common desert and dunes plants of the California desert. By even a qualitative comparison with data collected by other researchers, *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is quite rare relative to other species and in its spatial distribution in the dune landscape. In summary, *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is restricted to one area within the United States with a comparatively lower density than other dune species, with high variability in population size and density, climate, spatial distribution, and area occupied. The different population estimates presented in Table 1 above are valid in and of themselves but cannot be compared to one another due to differences in scale and methodology. Because of the differences between the total number of samples and the total area sampled, we recognize the recent BLM surveys as the most informative population estimates for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* The work of Phillips and Kennedy has been valuable in providing information on various parameters of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* life history, but cannot be used to support the assertions of the updated petition. Phillips and Kennedy's population estimates are appropriate only in the areas of their limited surveys, making it difficult to use their estimates to predict overall population health, trend, or stability. As the evidence suggests in Table 1, the size of the reproductive population of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* varies widely among all years surveyed and varies in density across the dunes (Willoughby 2005, Appendix 1; USFWS 2006b, Map 1). We expect these natural annual and spatial variations will continue and, therefore, detecting overall trends will be difficult for this species. Seed Production and Seed Bank Dynamics As described above in the Background section, many annual and short-lived perennial plants have a substantial soil seed bank. This life-history trait complicates assessment of viability for these species. When seed banks are important features of the demography of a species, census and demographic information for adult populations may mislead us about population viability. Understanding the seed bank would help us better assess the long-term viability of a species. However, seed banks are complex and difficult to quantify (Doak *et al.* 2002, pp. 312, 317; Given 1994, pp. 66-67). Phillips and Kennedy (i.e., Phillips and Kennedy 2006, p. 10) and the updated petition (i.e., ASA 2005, p. 44) emphasize the importance of understanding the seed bank to understanding the status of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* However, the updated petition seems to confuse the number of seeds produced (i.e., fecundity) with the number of seeds in the seed bank. In fact, the updated petition appears to equate seed production with recovery (ASA 2005, pp. 4-6). For example, Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 28) estimated seed production on their 25 survey sites at approximately 2.5 million seeds. However, they erroneously refer to estimated seed production as the seed bank (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 30; 2003, pp. 13, 21; 2004, p. 16; 2005, pp. 16-17). Lincoln *et al.* (1993, p. 223) define a soil seed bank as “the store of dormant seed buried in soil” whereas fecundity is defined as “the potential reproductive capacity of an organism or population, measured by the number of gametes or asexual propagules” (Lincoln *et al.* 1993, p. 93). Phillips and Kennedy (2005, Table 6) emphasize that a high seed estimate is, in and of itself, enough to ensure stability. Pavlik ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 3), in his peer review, commented that this is incorrect “knowing what we know about the high rates of seed mortality observed in other rare plants.” In her peer review, Bowers ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 8) stated that “multiplying average fecundity per plant by number of plants in a sample or population yields an estimate for sample or population fecundity. It is incorrect to substitute fecundity for seed-bank size.” Phillips and Kennedy do not estimate the size of the persistent seed bank (Baskin and Baskin 2001, pp. 141-143) but rather attempt to assess the potential seed bank, and therefore population size, based on an estimated reproductive rate where seed pod production roughly equals reproductive stability. In addition, Phillips and Kennedy (2002-2006) compound their sampling bias discussed above into hypothetical seed production values. Annual seed production was calculated from a few sample sites and extrapolated to 60 sites from the Phillips et al.
(2001)reconnaissance (Phillips and Kennedy 2006, p. 5). The average number of 171 seed pods per plant, median of 113 per plant (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27), was determined from only 10 plants (Phillips and Kennedy 2003, p. 12; 2004, p. 16). Phillips and Kennedy (2006, p. 9) calculated seed pod production based on the assumption that 100 percent of perennial plants are reproductive. They estimated an average 14 seeds per pod using Barneby's (1964, p. 862) observation of 11 to 16 ovules per pod (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27). Phillips and Kennedy's population and seed production estimates are based on sample sites selected for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* abundance (Phillips and Kennedy 2001, p. 10), thereby introducing a sample bias to the stated estimate of 2.5 to 5.7 million seeds. In addition to this sample bias, the estimate is biased by the assumption that most plants were reproductive. Kalisz ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 3) noted this problem in her peer review, stating that it was incorrect to multiply the number of pods by the total number of plants since many were seedlings. In fact, not all plants reproduce in a given year, even when the climate is favorable for reproduction. Phillips and Kennedy reported 45 percent of plants were reproductive in 2001 (Phillips and Kennedy 2003, Appendix A) and 63 percent were reproductive in 2005 (Phillips and Kennedy 2005, Appendix A). The BLM estimated that 75 percent of plants were reproductive in the 2005 surveys (Willoughby 2005, Table 4). In field surveys conducted in 2006, a year with no germination where the only *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* individuals alive in the Algodones Dunes were perennating plants, the BLM reported that 68 percent of plants were flowering adults (Willoughby 2006, p. vi). The Service reported 54 percent of plants as being reproductive in their study areas during 2006 (USFWS 2007, p. 13). Furthermore, accurate estimates of seed production depend on accurate estimates of the number of seed pods produced and the number of seeds produced per pod. Median seed pod production, and therefore mean seed production, likely varies annually. Using a mean production value from only 10 plants at a single site will not yield an accurate estimate for a population. Phillips and Kennedy reported that first-year plants produce about five seed pods per plant and plants 1 year or more in age produce large quantities of seed pods (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27). Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 17) stressed that plants in their second year of growth and older produce many times more seed pods than first-year plants. Whether median seed pod production on older plants is 113 (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27) or 139 (USFWS 2007, p. 14), one of the limiting variables in *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* stability is the ability or capability of the plant to survive long enough to replenish the seed bank with enough seeds to ensure continuing cohorts of plants. To estimate seed production per pod, in 2005 field surveys, the Service collected seed pods at random from plants throughout their survey area in April 2005. In this study, 416 seed pods from 78 plants were dissected and the undeveloped ovules were counted and separated from mature seeds. We observed an average of 5.2 mature seeds per pod. The total of mature seeds and undeveloped ovules (which are undeveloped seeds) averaged 11.4 per pod (McKinney *et al.* 2006, p. 85). One pod contained 15 mature seeds, while another pod contained 17 undeveloped ovules and mature seeds, closely matching the account of Barneby (1964, p. 862). The average of 5.2 mature seeds per pod is considerably less than the 14 seed per pod value used by Phillips and Kennedy in their seed production estimates (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27). The BLM conducted a pilot seed bank study during spring 2007. This pilot study randomly sampled 735 of the total cells sampled during the spring 2005 surveys in the Gecko, Adaptive and Ogilby management areas. All *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* seeds on the sand surface within each cell were counted and then the cell was systematically sampled with 49 cores to a depth of 4 inches (10.16 cm), counting subsurface seed. BLM estimates a total of 53,200,000 seeds in the Gecko, AMA, and Ogilby management areas in 2007, corresponding to a density of 2,572 seeds/ac (6,356 seeds/ha) (Willoughby 2007, p. v, Table 5). Finally, it is important to note that only a small fraction of seed produced in a given year survive to emerge as seedlings (Harper 1981, pp. 111-147; Fenner 1985, pp. 57-71). Dormant seeds that persist in the seed bank are subjected to many factors that may limit or preclude their ability to germinate. These factors include predation from animals or invertebrates, attack by microorganisms or fungi, habitat altered by wind, flood or mechanical events, or senescence (Baskin and Baskin 2001, pp. 149-160). After 5 years of greenhouse experiments, Porter *et al.* (2005, p. 29) reported high germination rates and little loss in seed viability. However, in artificial dune experiments the germination rate dropped to 27 percent and only another 2 percent of seeds germinated in the second season. As noted above, Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 22) substantiated that plants in their first season could produce seed, although on a few seed-per-plant basis. The updated petition asserts that these first-year plants contribute significantly to the seed bank and that the seed bank is replenished within two or three growing seasons (ASA 2005, pp. 7-8). Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 27 and Table 7; 2003, pp. 20-21; 2004, p. 17) continually calculate the number of seeds produced per pod, per plant, and per site and equate that production with replacement of the seed bank. However, we know of no research or studies that provide information specifically on the replacement rate of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* to its seed bank or the seed bank baseline size. Phillips and Kennedy's field observations were all conducted in years with highly variable precipitation as compared to the previous two decades (see Willoughby 2006, Figure 3), and their studies cover a period with large variation in demographic rates. However, seed banks are governed by demographic rates that can be difficult to quantify over short study periods (Doak *et al.* 2002, p. 312). Willoughby (2007, p. 11) could not determine the seed bank age or associate it with the very productive year of 2005, so it is difficult to assign his estimate of 53,200,000 seeds as the seed bank baseline for the 2007 study areas. Also, no analysis of seed viability was conducted from the seeds sampled in spring 2007, further limiting the assessment of the seed bank size. Willoughby (2007, p. 11) suggests that seed bank sampling in a good rainfall year, after germination and before seed set, would address the question of seed bank depletion and seed bank age. Kalisz and McPeek (1993, p. 319) emphasize that longer runs of bad precipitation years can magnify the negative effects on populations. Negative effects can include reduced germination, lower recruitment and reproduction, and runs of bad years exceeding the seed viability time in the seed bank. Because Phillips and Kennedy's (2002, p. 27 and Table 7; 2003, pp. 20-21; 2004, p. 17) estimates equate one seed produced with one plant germinated and we have no information on the seed bank baseline, their assertion that the seed bank is replaced within 2 or 3 growing seasons is speculative. We agree with the updated petition (ASA 2005) that understanding the soil seed bank is important to understanding the long-term viability of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* However, for the reasons stated above, we do not agree that the work of Phillips and Kennedy (2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006) effectively elucidates the nature, extent, and dynamics of the seed bank for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* to the point that we fully understand the seed bank's contribution to the long-term persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* We also do not agree that these data provide evidence that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* will continue to persist because of the extent and nature of its seed bank. In fact, the information suggests that estimates of plant persistence and reproduction based on the anecdotal observations in the literature or single-year observations may not be accurate predictors of the nature or dynamics of the seed bank. Evidence suggests that not all plants (i.e., not 100 percent) reproduce in any given year, that seed pod production may be as much as one-third less than reported by Phillips and Kennedy, that seed production is as much as two-thirds less than that reported by Phillips and Kennedy, that only a small fraction of seeds may germinate from the persistent seed bank, and that under managed conditions about one-quarter of seeds in the wild may germinate. Phillips and Kennedy (2006, Table 3) did not consider any of these variables in their seed bank estimates. These variables and others (e.g., rate of seed mortality and aging, amount of seed lost to predators (Elzinga et al. 1998, p. 284)) must be considered for inclusion in models to estimate long-term persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* Pavlik ( *in litt.* 2003, p. 4, comment for ASA
(2001)petition) and Bowers ( *in litt.* 2006, p. 9) noted that Phillips and Kennedy have, however, begun to collect data valuable as initial parameters for these models. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the “species” is determined we then evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:
(1)The species is extinct;
(2)the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; or
(3)the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error. A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections. A species is “endangered” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a “significant portion of its range” and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a “significant portion of its range.” The word “range” in the significant portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether the currently listed species, *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii,* should be considered threatened or endangered. Then we will consider whether there are any portions of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* 's range in which the status of the species differs from that determined for the species range-wide. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines “foreseeable” as “being such as may be reasonably anticipated” and “lying within the range for which forecasts are possible” (Merriam-Webster 2001, p. 456). For the purposes of this finding, the “foreseeable future” is the period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends reasonably extrapolated. Habitat for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in the United States is almost entirely in public ownership and management at the BLM Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). Due to recent litigation, the specifics of how the BLM will manage the ISDRA in the short term are unclear. As described under “A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range,” the current Recreation Area Management Plan
(RAMP)(BLM 2003a) is not being implemented due to a court order, but is the most recent plan available for analysis. At some point, BLM will implement a RAMP for the area, but when that will occur is also unclear. However, based on past management by BLM and the management direction for the ISDRA described in the current RAMP, we can reasonably anticipate that BLM will continue to manage habitat within the ISDRA in the long-term for multiple use, including OHV recreation. In light of such long-term management direction and the available data regarding impacts to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* resulting from anticipated continued and increased OHV use within the ISDRA, as analyzed below, we believe that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future as it relates to the status of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* In making this finding, we evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available (including the updated petition and associated documents (ASA 2005), our analysis (USFWS 2006a and 2006b) of BLM's raw data for the 2004 and 2005 surveys (Willoughby 2005a and 2005b, respectively), field studies conducted by the Service (Groom et al. 2007, USFWS 2007), the most recent reports by Phillips and Kennedy (2005 and 2006), BLM (Willoughby 2005b and 2006), and McGrann and McGrann (2005), and other information available to us) to determine whether delisting *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is warranted. The following analysis examines the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and those activities and conditions currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* within the foreseeable future. A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range In the final rule listing *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (63 FR 53596, pp. 53605-53606) and in our 12-month finding on the previous petition to delist *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (69 FR 31523, pp. 31527-31529), we identified off-highway vehicle
(OHV)use as a serious threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* We continue to consider such activity, and the development associated with it, to present significant threats to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* and its dune habitat. The studies supporting this conclusion and the extent with which *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is threatened by OHVs are discussed below, as are probable effects of OHVs on seedling establishment, and visitation patterns in the Algodones Dunes. *Studies on desert plants other than Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii.* Although few quantitative data are available, early studies documented general OHV impacts on desert and psammophytic vegetation in California. Bury *et al.* (1977, pp. 16-19, Fig. 11) compared eight paired sites in the Mojave Desert in 1974 and 1975, examining the impact of OHV use on creosote bush scrub and associated wildlife. Pavlik (1979, p. 75-79) quantified the immediate physical effects of direct contact with an OHV on the Eureka Dunes in Inyo County, California. Luckenbach and Bury (1983, p. 280) in non-replicated studies of paired plots along State Route 78 through the Algodones Dunes, reported reduced numbers of herbaceous and perennial plants, arthropods, lizards, and mammals between areas closed to entry (i.e., control plots) and those exposed to heavy OHV use. The results of these studies indicated that OHV impacts were higher or had a greater effect on habitat outside control plots. However, all of these studies were limited in scope because they either observed impacts on a small number of sample plants or the sample areas were limited in distribution. *Studies with information on OHV damage to Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii.* Several studies included data and/or observations relevant to assessing OHV damage to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii.* McGrann and McGrann
(2005)assessed OHV impacts in paired plots along OHV closure boundaries. Phillips and his colleagues' reports (2001, 2003, and 2005) include estimations of numbers of plants damaged, likelihood of OHVs avoiding plants, and resilience of plants to OHV impacts. Willoughby (2005a, 2005b) included estimates of the numbers of plants damaged in 2004 and 2005. Groom et al.
(2007)followed the fates of individual plants (some run over by OHVs and others not (i.e., “controls”)) throughout the growing season. Finally, a study conducted by Service biologists as a follow-up to Groom et al.
(2007)compared survival of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* over the growing season in areas open to OHVs with survival in areas closed to OHVs. Each of these studies is discussed briefly below. McGrann and McGrann (2005, pp. 67-69), used 42 matching pairs of plots systematically distributed along closure boundaries in three study areas of the Algodones Dunes to assess OHV impacts on *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . However, the results of this study were inconclusive due to the low number of plants sampled, sampling period, and climate. Only 19 plants were found among the 42 plots, and the Buttercup study area was sampled very late in the season. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* densities were higher for small plants and seedlings on control plots versus impact plots with more than 30 OHV tracks per plot when all plots were pooled, but were not significant for adult plants (McGrann and McGrann 2005, pp. 71-72). In plots with fewer than 30 OHV tracks, 50 percent had higher overall plant density than in the control plot. Because of the transient nature of the surface structure of dunes, most quantitative measures of OHV impacts are given in terms of numbers of plants impacted. Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 12) stated that only 667 plants observed in the areas open to OHVs showed signs of contact with OHVs. Phillips and Kennedy (2003, p. 21) noted only 430 plants damaged by OHVs during 2003. However, we find these values to be of limited use for several reasons. First, both of these surveys occurred from March to May 2001 and 2003, respectively, well after the peak holidays with high dune visitation. Second, Phillips and Kennedy's damage reports based on their monitoring sites represent only about 138 ac (56 ha). If we extrapolate their data to *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* habitat in the area open to OHV activity, approximately 4,709 ac (1,905 ha), the number of plants potentially impacted by OHVs could be more than 10,000 plants, but we have no way of evaluating the accuracy of this extrapolation. Third, Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 12) noted that signs of OHV effects are transitory, observing that “as wind obliterated the tracks there was no sign of any effect.” Phillips and Kennedy may be under estimating damage by assuming that the only direct evidence of any “effect” is a tire track in the sand that can be directly associated with a damaged plant. We assume that the wind will also obliterate any evidence of damage to plants by blowing away broken branches and burying broken stems in sand. Fourth, Phillips *et al.*
(2001)did not record whether these were one-time observations over the survey days, or if damaged plants were tracked to prevent double-counting of individuals. In addition, Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 12) suggested that the number of damaged plants was minimal because OHV drivers avoid vegetated basins, where *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* often grows in proximity to shrubs, to prevent potential tire damage. The authors provided no information on plants observed outside of bowls with woody detritus, nor did they discuss the potential damage to plants from four-wheel quads or motorcycles that can traverse woody basins without damaging equipment. However, Phillips and Kennedy (2005, p. 22) also observed that *A. magdalenae var. peirsonii* was more widely distributed in 2005 compared with other years, “with low density occurrences often observed between sites where no plants” were before. This suggests that plants, at least in 2005, were not isolated to bowls with woody vegetation and therefore were unprotected. Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 12) anecdotally observed that nearly all plants that were run over were resilient and “popped back up” with no damage to the stems or flowers and that “as soon as the wind obliterated the tracks, there was no sign of any effect.” These observations of impact and resilience were made without determining the persistence or the productivity of the plants damaged. Additionally, no follow-up visits were noted, and no measures of impact to the habitat, description of type of damage, or effects on plant reproductive capacity were provided. Willoughby (2005a, pp. 13-14) reported that 731 plants exhibited signs of OHV impact during the 2004 surveys, and more recently he reported that 8,113 plants exhibited signs of OHV impact along the 2005 survey transects (Willoughby 2005b, p. 24). Both of these estimates, 731 and 8,113 plants, are from one-time observations along transect surveys conducted during spring 2004 and 2005, respectively. In light of the number of survey transects in spring 2005, we consider Willoughby's (2005b, p. 24) estimate of 8,113 plants damaged by OHVs as the best single-date, dunes-wide estimate available. Nonetheless, this number was acquired from surveys conducted from mid-February through April 2005, well after peak-use holiday weekends. All survey cells were visited once during this time period. The estimate, 8,113 plants, does not include plants likely impacted during the peak holiday weekends prior to the surveys. We estimate that the number of plants impacted could be 2 to 3 times larger when these holidays are factored in, based on the number of peak-use days prior to the surveys, but we have no means to evaluate the accuracy of this estimate. Groom *et al.*
(2007)is the first study to date to monitor individual plant fates through a growing season. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* GPS (Global Positioning System) coordinates were acquired on randomly selected plants marked in an experiment conducted from February until June 2005. Some plants (i.e., “treatment plants”) in an area closed to OHV activity were purposefully struck with an OHV and their reproductive capacity and fate were tracked with repeated monthly visits. Results indicate that plants with canopies less than 18 inches (0.5 m) had a 33 percent lower survival rate than plants in the control group that were not struck (Groom *et al.* 2007, pp. 128-130). Service biologists continued to track survivorship in a follow-up study conducted from December 2005 until June 2006. No germination occurred during the 2006 growing season, indicating that all live plants encountered were greater than 1-year old. In this study, GPS coordinates were acquired for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants in two 618-ac (250-ha) study areas, one in an OHV-open area and one in an OHV-closed area. Every plant was revisited monthly to monitor health, reproductive state, biometrics, and seed pod production. Plants in the OHV-open area were 20 percent less likely to survive the entire study period than plants in the OHV-closed area (USFWS 2007, p. 14). While the observational data reported by Phillips and Kennedy and BLM shed some light on OHV impacts to *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , the results are of limited value. Groom *et al.*
(2007)and the follow-up Service study have three principal advantages over the observational data. First, these studies were designed to test specific hypotheses regarding plant survival, using dune bowls or individual plants that were randomly selected within each study area. Second, in both years, these studies documented plant fates through the season, rather than a single observation late in the season. Third, the 2006 study (USFWS 2007) covered all major holiday weekends except Thanksgiving, extending the time period of the study to correspond with OHV use in the dunes. The data including major holiday periods more accurately reflects plant fate because the risk to plants in the open area is dependent upon dune use patterns. Most of the studies, and in particular Groom *et al.*
(2007)and the follow-up Service study (USFWS 2007), indicate that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants can be damaged by OHV activity. In fact, the observation by Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 12) that “the occurrence of dune plants and heavy use areas for vehicles is, to a large extent, mutually exclusive,” describes similar findings by Willoughby (2000, p. 36), WESTEC (1977, pp. 131-134), Luckenbach and Bury (1983, p. 280), ECOS (1990, p. 81), and McGrann and McGrann (2005, pp. 69-76). While little or no documentation exists of the graded effects of medium- and low-use areas for vehicles, by the time the vehicle use level can be described as “heavy,” the area is generally devoid of plants. The exact process is not understood, but we postulate that either repeated depletion of pre-flowering seedlings depletes the seed bank, elimination of standing seed-producing plants diminishes and eventually extinguishes input to the seed bank, or untimely or excessive scarification of the seeds by the additional grinding actions of sand moved by OHVs causes seeds to desiccate. The conclusion that the petitioners reach suggesting OHVs are not damaging the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population originated in Phillips *et al.*
(2001)(see discussion in Distribution of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in the Algodones Dunes section). This conclusion is based on a reconnaissance of the dunes that assessed presence and abundance of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in a general way in open and closed areas. It was not designed to determine whether OHVs damage *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , and it is internally inconsistent on whether differences in presence and abundance were observed in open and closed areas. If presence and abundance of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* were similar in open and closed areas, it would suggest that OHVs may not be affecting abundance. However, the Service's analysis of BLM's 2005 data indicates that the petitioner's assertion is incorrect (USFWS 2006b, pp. 3-4). Finally, Willoughby (2007, p. 9) concludes that “the closed areas of the Gecko and Ogilby MAs have larger seed banks than the open areas.” *Seedling establishment.* In addition, the coincidence of timing of seedling establishment and the cooler months preferred by OHV enthusiasts increases the susceptibility of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* to impacts from OHVs (Romspert and Burk 1979, pp. 29-30). The period of plant sensitivity, approximately late October to late February, includes seed germination and emergence (Barneby 1964, p. 862; Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 29). Aside from the direct crushing of the delicate seedlings, OHVs in close proximity to the seedlings may indirectly affect germinating seedlings by accelerating soil desiccation that can result in root desiccation (Harper 1981, pp. 116-117; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983, p. 144). The roots of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* seedlings are especially sensitive to drying out if the plants or sand surface are disturbed. Seedling death may result from both types of impacts. Seedlings damaged but not killed may produce fewer flowers and seeds than undamaged seedlings leading to a gradual diminishment of the seed bank (Pavlik 1979, p. 76). This period of sensitivity directly overlaps five of the six visitation peaks to the Algodones Dunes, including Halloween, Thanksgiving, New Years Day, Martin Luther King Day, and Presidents' Day (BLM 2003a, pp. 89, 201). When Easter weekend is included, all holiday weekends, about 27 days, account for 50 percent of annual visitation to the Dunes, with the remaining 50 percent occurring on non-holiday weekends between October and May (BLM 2003a, pp. 89, 201). *Visitation patterns* . Since we listed *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , visitation by recreational users to the ISDRA has continued to increase (BLM 2003b, p. 25; BLM 2006a) and has outpaced previous projections (BLM 1987, Table 6). The updated petition (ASA 2005) did not address visitor use patterns or increases relative to the distribution of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . The total number of visitors to the dunes in 2006 (BLM 2006a) has nearly quadrupled from 1995 (BLM 2003b, p. 25). Based on figures from BLM, visitor use increased by 69 percent from fiscal year 2000 (BLM 2003a, p. 237) to fiscal year 2006 (BLM 2006a). Specifically, BLM recorded 867,753 visitor use days in 2000 (BLM 2003a, p. 237) and 1,464,580 in 2006 (BLM 2006a). Visitor use was up an additional 5 percent in fiscal year 2006 over fiscal year 2005 (BLM 2006a) despite a court-ordered closure of 29 percent of the ISDRA and claims that high gas prices would reduce visitation, and was up slightly in fiscal year 2007 over fiscal year 2006 (BLM 2007). Visitor use is now more than 3 percent over the projected estimate for 2012/2013 (BLM 1987, p. 15; 2003a, p. 237; 2006a). User groups are advocating for building as many camping pads as possible until “over a span of time 100 percent of both sides of [Gecko] road would be camping pads” in the Gecko Management Area (ASA 2002, p. 4). We conclude that visitor use in the Algodones Dunes is likely to continue to increase. The BLM has attempted to assess OHV impact areas on the dunes in 2 separate analyses. A vehicle track map (Willoughby 2000, Map 24) along selected transects of the Algodones Dunes on Easter weekend 1998 showed that considerable areas of potential habitat have been impacted. In a more recent study, a randomized sample of 775 survey cells occupied by *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in 2005 were selected and analyzed from digital aerial photographs acquired on Presidents' Day weekend in 2006 (Willoughby 2006, p. 3). The results indicate a slight negative relationship between the logarithm (a common statistical transformation of data) total number of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants and the density of OHV tracks, but this relationship was not statistically significant (P = 0.069) (Willoughby 2006, p. 10, Figure 12). The results of both of these analyses were inconclusive because on-the-ground counts of plants coincident with the vehicle-track mapped areas were not performed and cumulative impacts to standing plants, seed banks, or habitat cannot be estimated; whereas the studies of Groom *et al.*
(2007)and USFWS
(2007)carefully monitored the fates of individual plants damaged by OHVs or in high OHV-use areas. Though a court order continues to require that BLM maintain 49,300 ac (19,950 ha) of temporary vehicle closures within five selected areas in the ISDRA, BLM's 2003 Recreation Area Management Plan
(RAMP)(2003a, pp. 37-78) proposed opening to OHV use (to various extents) all temporary closures in the dunes. Although this plan is not currently being implemented, it is the most recent plan available for analysis. Under this plan, the 27,700-ac (11,200-ha) North Algodones Dunes Wilderness (Wilderness) would continue to be closed to OHV use. However, less than 9 percent of the U.S. population of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* occurs within the Wilderness. Although some areas supporting *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* are remote, technological advances, such as a fully implemented GPS navigation system (USDoD 2005, p. 2-2), affordable GPS units and cell phones, and OHVs with greater range, have removed the obstacles to OHV users to penetrate further into the dunes (ASA 2006). Thus, well-equipped vehicles can now travel farther on a tank of gas and are less likely to get lost in the featureless expanse of the dunes, expanding potential OHV impacts into areas that once inhibited access. If the court order is lifted and the temporary closures are reopened to OHV activity, adverse effects to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* populations within the U.S. will increase. If the court order were to be lifted, and BLM's 2003 RAMP implemented, all areas in the Algodones Dunes with *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , except the Wilderness area, would be open to some level of OHV use. Sixty-six percent of the U.S. population of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is located in the temporary closures (USFWS 2006b, Table 2), 9 percent is in the Wilderness area, and the remaining 25 percent in areas open to OHV use. Currently, the odds of finding *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in areas closed to OHVs are 2.6 times greater than in areas open to OHV use (USFWS 2006b, pp. 3-4). Evidence indicates that 20 percent of the population occurring in areas open to OHV use will not survive the entire growing season (USFWS 2007, p. 14) and that the chances of an average plant surviving an impact will be reduced by 33 percent (Groom et al. 2007, pp. 128-130). If the temporary closures were removed and visitor use was equivalent to that now documented in current open areas throughout the dunes, it is reasonable to expect that plant density of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* would be reduced to the mean density level now recorded for the open areas, 23 plants/ac (56/ha) (USFWS 2006a, p. 4). We estimate that, at that density, the dunes-wide population would be reduced by approximately 41 percent (Bartel *in litt.* 2007, p. 2). This predicted reduction in the 2005 observed population for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in the ISDRA may overestimate the effects of OHVs because we did not account for the minimization of impacts via BLM's implementation of the adaptive management proposed for the Adaptive Management Area
(AMA)of the ISDRA, nor did we account for the distance from camping areas or access points that likely would ameliorate or attenuate the effects of OHV use. Conversely, the 41 percent figure may underestimate the effects of OHVs because we did not account for the increasing trend in OHV use in the Algodones Dunes. The AMA and Ogilby temporary closures total 37,519 ac (15,184 ha) and contain more than 50 percent of the current *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population (USFWS 2006b, Table 2). Even in light of the potential problems with this estimate, the best data indicates that reopening the temporary closure areas in the dunes to OHV use may reduce the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population in these two management areas alone by 50 percent. In addition, the areas of highest abundance are areas closest to, and within easy access of, the sand highway (the main unpaved thoroughfare between staging areas and large, recreational dunes or dune complexes) (USFWS 2006b, Map 1). We are confident that reopening the temporary closure areas in the dunes to OHV use would increase the impact of OHVs on *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . However, we acknowledge that there is uncertainty with respect to the future management of the area by the BLM. BLM and the Service are currently working together to consider options for future management of the Algodones Dunes and the potential impacts of various scenarios on *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . It is conceivable that future management decisions could provide protection and management that would ameliorate threats to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* to such an extent that we would consider proposing to delist the species. In summary, areas within the dunes subject to intensive OHV use have a lower abundance of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* while plants within the interior portions of the dunes and within temporary closure areas appear to have been less affected by OHV use. The updated petition and associated documents report hundreds of plants detected during relatively brief survey periods that were impacted by OHVs (ASA 2005). Repeat visits to marked plants attest to a lower survival rate for plants struck by OHVs (Groom *et al.* 2007, pp. 128-130) and for plants in open areas in general (USFWS 2007, p. 14). Thus, studies of the effects of OHVs on *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* (e.g., Groom *et al.* 2007), the reported absence of dune plants from areas of heavy OHV use, the documented trends of increasing visitorship in the Algodones Dunes, the potential for the lifting of the temporary closures, and the uncertainty associated with future management of the ISDRA support the conclusion that OHV use continues to pose a significant threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* and its dune habitat in the foreseeable future, and we can reliably predict that the impacts of continued and increasing levels of OHV use anticipated to occur, particularly if *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is no longer listed, would likely result in a downward trend in the population until *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is in danger of extinction. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes We do not have any data suggesting that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is, or may be, overutilized for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. C. Disease or Predation Herbivory was reported for some *Astragalus* taxa in the final rule listing *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . As part of a series of reports on the natural history of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , Porter (2003a, p. 4) noted the general poor health of adult plants and attributed it to rodent and insect herbivory. Porter (2002a, p. 07862) reported “nearly ubiquitous” harvesting of leaflets and young inflorescences by rodents in *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* populations. Most of the plants had leaves, leaflets, or terminal portions of the stems removed, likely by unidentified rodents that had left abundant tracks around *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants. Porter (2003a, p. 4) also had similar results in 2003. To the extent that rodents remove photosynthetic tissue and young inflorescences, plants are likely to exhibit a loss of vigor and reduction in reproductive output (i.e., seeds) as noted by Hulme (1994, pp. 647-650). Indeed, Phillips and Kennedy (2002, p. 24) noted that seed bank counts were lower in areas where they noted kangaroo rat tracks and dens and suggested that this should be investigated. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , with its large seeds, may be more prone to seed predation than the observations reported by BLM or Phillips and Kennedy (Hoffmann *et al.* 1995, pp. 203-205). Pavlik ( *in litt.* 2003, p. 5, comment for ASA
(2001)petition) noted that rodents may be a constant, long-term source of high seed mortality that could dramatically reduce the seed bank. Beetles, in the family Bruchidae, were reported to contribute to the high mortality of seeds and reduced seed crop for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* by Romspert and Burk (1979, pp. 28-29). Larvae of these beetles eat the contents of the seeds before emerging as adults. Fruits collected in April continued to release beetles into October (Romspert and Burk 1979, p. 29). Porter (2003a, p. 5) found between 45 and 86 percent of the fruits on the few *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants where he could find fruits were infested with bruchid beetles. The range of infested fruits was 0 to 29 percent for dispersed fruits on the ground. Similarly, for another obligate dune plant, *Astragalus lentiginosus* var. *micans* , Pavlik and Barbour (1985, p. 61) found that dispersed fruits had about 66 percent of the seeds eaten or damaged by insect larvae compared to 86 percent of the seeds in fruits still on the plant. Also the number of undamaged seeds decreased by more than 60 percent between April and May, indicating that predation is highest at dispersal time. The reduction of productivity of any given cohort of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* from seed predation is unknown but may locally be considerable in a given year. Seed predation has also been reported to cause significant loss of ovules or seeds in *Sidalcea nelsoniana* , a federally threatened perennial forb (Gisler and Mienke 1997, pp. 58-60), in *Astragalus canadensis* (Boe *et al.* 1989, pp. 514-515), and in two other species of *Astragalus* (Green and Palmbald 1975, pp. 1436-1437). As yet unidentified weevils were also observed to strip the epidermis from the stems, which would affect the movement of food and water in the plants (Porter 2003a, p. 4). Available information suggests that rodent herbivory and seed predation by insects, as noted above, may play a pivotal role in plant viability in dune bowls (Hulme 1996, pp. 610-611). We do not believe that natural herbivory, by itself, is likely to pose a direct threat to the conservation of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . However, although the total impact to annual recruitment has not been quantified in the dunes, the additional loss or damage of seeds or seedlings through natural herbivory could exacerbate or augment threats to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in the presence of other stressors such as increasing OHV activity, especially when the damage from natural herbivory potentially impacts 30 to 60 percent, or more, of the standing population (Porter 2003a, pp. 4-5). D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The discussion of the lack of regulatory protections for *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* by the State of California cited in the final listing rule (63 FR 53596) is still accurate. Pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)Code) and the State Endangered Species Act (CESA), *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* was listed as endangered in 1979. Because this plant primarily occurs on BLM-managed lands, provisions of CESA do not apply. The BLM and CDFG developed a habitat management plan
(HMP)in 1987 that included provisions for monitoring transects every other year until trends were established. However, little monitoring specific to sensitive species was carried out by BLM prior to the listing of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Since the listing, BLM and CDFG have been conducting periodic monitoring for the rare plants on the Algodones Dunes. The updated petition indicates that *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* has received “adequate regulatory protection from BLM since 1977” (ASA 2005, p. 49). This statement is based on the premise that BLM can only manage human activities, and human activities do not negatively impact *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . As indicated above in Factor A, we disagree with this assertion because we conclude that OHV use (i.e., human activity) is a significant threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Given our conclusion that OHV activity is a threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , we note that BLM's management of OHV activity can affect the magnitude of the threat from OHVs to the plant. No assessment exists of the relative contribution of the portion of the population present in the Wilderness (permanently closed) to the persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Less than 9 percent of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants were observed in the Wilderness in 2005, and though the Wilderness is considered closed to OHV use, indications of occasional illegal entry in the form of OHV tracks in the area can be found on maps (Willoughby 2000, Map 24). Designation of the Wilderness was one of the reasons cited in the final rule for changing the proposed status from endangered to threatened (63 FR 53609). As stated in the final listing rule (63 FR 53609), “While this taxon remains vulnerable to the OHV use occurring over most of its dune habitat, the Service believes that the dispersed nature of its colonies and the wilderness designation reduce the potential for immediate extinction.” BLM temporarily closed areas of the Algodones Dunes to off-highway and other vehicular traffic effective November 3, 2000. Notwithstanding the 2005 Record of Decision, 2003 RAMP, and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the ISDRA where BLM (2003a) proposed to reopen those temporary closures to OHV activity, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered, among other things, that BLM “maintain the vehicle closures as identified in the `Temporary Closure of Approximately 49,300 Acres to Motorized Vehicle Use of Five Selected Areas in the ISDRA'.” If the court order is lifted and these areas are reopened, the threat to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* would increase above current levels. Such action would open 29 percent of the ISDRA to OHV use, leaving the 27,700-ac (11,200-ha) Wilderness as the only closed area. Removing the closures and/or increasing the number of camping pads in the Gecko and Ogilby Management Areas is likely to reduce *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in those management areas significantly (Bartel *in litt.* 2007, p. 2). However, we expect that the species will continue to persist in fewer numbers in Gecko and Ogilby, even if OHV use increases. In addition, as noted above in Factor A, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to future management of the Algodones Dunes. In light of the uncertain status of the 2003 RAMP, we believe that adequate regulatory mechanisms are not yet in place to support removing the protections of the Act. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence *Trespass* . Although the range-wide impact is difficult to assess, we have received an increase in reports of purposeful or unintentional trespass into *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* habitat that is closed to OHV use. Porter (2002b, pp. 2-3) described tracks and incursions of OHVs into areas closed to OHV traffic and an instance where all of the aerial stems of a plant had been cut off. These closed areas are outside of the Wilderness. Activity of this nature has been noted on maps and by ground personnel (Willoughby 2000, Map 24; Porter 2002b, p. 2). *Low reproduction* . *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* may also be threatened by low numbers of reproducing individuals, a circumstance that occurs from time to time. As noted earlier, not all plants flower each year. Movements and fluctuations of populations have not been recorded for a long enough period to assess the significance of low reproduction to the survival of the taxon. The BLM (Willoughby 2001, p. 22) reported a total of only 86 plants throughout their transect areas in the 2000 survey. Phillips *et al.* (2001, p. 10) found only 5 plants more than a year old out of the 72,000 counted in their survey covering approximately 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) open to OHV use in 2001. Having so few older individuals may be a concern given that the older, larger plants contribute more to the seed bank than younger, flowering juveniles (Romspert and Burk 1979, p. 28; Phillips and Kennedy 2002, p. 27). Random events, like periodic drought, may have a significant detrimental effect on the species when so few individuals are present or when the habitat requirements are so narrow that random environmental conditions can result in the demise of an entire cohort. In 2003, the entire cohort of seedlings was lost due to delayed germination and high temperatures (Phillips and Kennedy 2003, p. 15; Porter 2003b, p. 1). The ecological impact of any cyclic depletion and restoration of the seed bank is unknown. *Fragmentation and isolation* . As discussed above, less than 9 percent of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* plants were observed in the Wilderness in 2005. Implementation of the 2003 RAMP, as currently written, would fragment the entire range of the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population into management islands of plants separated by large OHV-impact areas (see Willoughby 2006, Map 6). Effects to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* from fragmentation would be difficult to measure but may include lower seed production due to reduced visitation by pollinators (Jennersten 1988, pp. 361-363; Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 1999, pp. 434-436; Baron and Bros 2005, pp. 48-50) and increased local predation pressure in instances where populations are reduced to isolated individuals (Girdler and Radtke 2006, pp. 220-222). If the Wilderness were isolated and the total population diminished as estimated, in light of proposed management actions, justification to delist *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* would be difficult. *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* has evidently persisted at low abundance in areas of moderate to high OHV use over the short term. However, because protection is ensured for only 9 percent of the population, *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is at increased risk of long-term population decreases due to events such as long-term drought, climate change, or focused predation. Significant Portion of the Range Analysis On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range' ” (U.S. DOI 2007). We have summarized our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying statutory language below. A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species and it contributes substantially to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the species. In other words, in considering significance, the Service should ask whether the loss of this portion likely would eventually move the species toward extinction, but not necessarily to the point where the species should be listed as threatened. The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that
(i)the portions may be significant and
(ii)the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient for the Service to address the significance question first, or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is threatened or endangered there; if the Service determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. Finding As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat factors to assess whether *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When considering the listing status of the species, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether the species is threatened or endangered throughout all of its range. The status review for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* contained in this document is for the entire range of this species as listed under the Act. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the biology of this species and its threats. We reviewed the updated petition and associated documents, information available in our files, and other published and unpublished information submitted to us during the public comment period following our 90-day petition finding. We also reviewed new data and information on the life history and ecology of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . For many years controversy has focused on the abundance of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* in any given year and the implications of abundance figures for the long-term persistence of the species. For a species that fluctuates widely in numbers from year to year, an assessment of abundance may not be the most meaningful measure of the likelihood of persistence. Characterizing the population trend, resilience, and long-term viability of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* would be more relevant but has not been done in a rigorous and meaningful manner to date. In addition, we agree with the updated petition (ASA 2005) that understanding the soil seed bank is important to understanding the long-term viability of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . However, we do not agree that the nature, extent, and dynamics of the seed bank for *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* have been characterized to the point that we fully understand the seed bank's contribution to the long-term persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . In addition, we do not agree that the available data provide evidence that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* will continue to persist because of the extent and nature of its seed bank. In short, we have an incomplete understanding of the relationship of abundance data and seed bank data to the long-term persistence of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Therefore, we cannot conclude that high numbers of above-ground plants and the purported large numbers of seeds in the seed bank ensure the long-term persistence of the species. We continue to consider OHV activity the primary threat to *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Documentation available attests to historical and ongoing OHV impacts to the species (WESTEC 1977, pp. 1-135; ECOS 1990, pp. 1-85; Willoughby 2000, pp. 1-37, 2001, pp. 1-31, 2004, pp. 1-20, 2005, pp. 1-; Phillips *et al.* 2001, pp. 1-13; Phillips and Kennedy 2003, pp. 1-21; Groom *et al.* 2007, pp. 119-134; USFWS 2006b, pp. 1-9, and 2007, pp. 1-36). Areas within the dunes subject to intensive OHV use (e.g., staging areas) have a lower abundance of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . Longer-term monitoring indicates that plants exposed to OHV activity have a reduced likelihood of survival (e.g., Groom *et al.* 2007, pp. 128-130). Available information suggests that within the foreseeable future OHV use will continue to increase and pose a threat to the survival of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* , and we can reliably predict that the impacts of continued and increasing levels of OHV use anticipated to occur, particularly if *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is no longer listed, would likely result in a downward trend in the population until *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is in danger of extinction. Secondary threats to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* include rodent and insect herbivory, seed predation, and effects of fragmentation and environmental stochasticity/catastrophes, all which may be exacerbated by the low reproduction of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* . While the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness will continue to be closed to OHV use, this area alone is not sufficient to ensure the long-term survival of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* because it provides only a small percentage of the entire habitat for this species within the Algodones Dunes and the area provides less available habitat for this plant relative to the areas south of State Route 78 that have in the past or may in the future be open to OHV use. Based on the 2005 population estimates derived by the BLM, less than 9 percent of the *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* population in the United States occurs within the Wilderness. The distribution of *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* from pre-2003 surveys indicates a higher relative abundance of plants in the central dunes south of State Route 78 and more recent surveys confirm this observation. Thus, the Wilderness alone is not sufficient to sustain this species because it does not provide sufficient habitat and habitat quality to ensure the long-term survival of this species, and the long-term viability of the species within the Wilderness is dependent upon the remainder of the range remaining viable. Thus, although direct impacts from OHV use are minimal within the Wilderness, the overall impacts to *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* within the Wilderness that may result from the combined threats discussed above (including indirect effects of OHV use) are essentially equal to those present throughout the rest of the species' range. Applying the process described above under “Significant Portion of the Range Analysis” for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, we next address whether any portions of the range of *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* warrant further consideration. As explained above, we have determined that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* remains threatened throughout all of its range due to the direct mortality, reduced survival, and/or reduced reproductive success that we predict would result from the effects of the identified threats analyzed in the five-factor analysis. We do not have any data suggesting that the identified threats to the species are concentrated in any portion of the range such that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* may be in danger of extinction in that portion. Therefore, we find that there are no portions of the range that warrant further consideration. After a thorough review and consideration of all information available, we find that delisting *Astragalus magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* is not warranted at this time because the plant continues to be at risk due to the threats described above. We find that *A. magdalenae* var. *peirsonii* remains likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and should remain classified as a threatened species. In making this determination, we have followed the procedures set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424). We will continue to monitor the status of the species, and to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding. References Cited A complete list of all references cited in this document is available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary author of this document is Lloyd B. McKinney of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: July 2, 2008. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E8-16041 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 23 [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0003] [96000-1671-0000-P5] RIN 1018-AV70 Revision of Regulations Implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Import and Export of Sturgeon Caviar AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), propose to revise the regulations that implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by incorporating certain provisions related to international trade in sturgeon caviar adopted at the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP14) to CITES. We propose to reduce the quantity of caviar that may be imported or exported under the CITES personal effects exemption and amend the requirements for import of caviar from shared stocks subject to quotas. These changes would bring U.S. regulations in line with revisions adopted by consensus at the most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (June 2007). The revised regulations would help us more effectively promote species conservation, help us continue to fulfill our responsibilities under the Treaty, and help those affected by CITES to understand how to conduct lawful international trade in sturgeon caviar. DATES: We will accept comments received on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AV70; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on *http://www.regulations.gov* . This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the **Public Comments** section at the end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about submitting comments). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of Management Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212; Arlington, VA 22203 (telephone,
(703)358-2093; fax,
(703)358-2280). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background CITES was negotiated in 1973 in Washington, DC, at a conference attended by delegations from 80 countries. The United States ratified the Treaty on September 13, 1973, and it entered into force on July 1, 1975, after the required 10 countries had ratified it. Currently 172 countries have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to CITES; these countries are known as Parties. Section 8A of the Endangered Species Act, as amended in 1982 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), designates the Secretary of the Interior as the U.S. Management Authority and U.S. Scientific Authority for CITES. These authorities have been delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The original U.S. regulations implementing CITES took effect on May 23, 1977 (42 FR 10465, February 22, 1977), after the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties
(CoP)was held. The CoP meets every 2 to 3 years to vote on proposed resolutions and decisions that interpret and implement the text of the Treaty and on amendments to the listing of species in the CITES Appendices. The current U.S. CITES regulations took effect on September 24, 2007, and incorporate provisions from applicable resolutions and decisions adopted at meetings of the Conference of the Parties up to and including the thirteenth meeting (CoP13), which took place in 2004. Article VII(3) of the Treaty provides for the import, export, or re-export of specimens that are personal or household effects (see the definitions in § 23.5) without CITES documents under specific circumstances. For some species, including sturgeon and paddlefish (Acipenseriformes), the Parties have established limits on the quantity of certain specimens that may be transported as personal and household effects. At CoP14, in June 2007, the Parties agreed to reduce the quantity of sturgeon or paddlefish caviar that may be imported or exported under the personal effects exemption from 250 grams to 125 grams (see Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) and Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14)). This change was originally recommended by the International Sturgeon Enforcement Workshop to Combat Illegal Trade in Caviar (Brussels, 2006) and was endorsed by the United States and adopted by consensus at CoP14. We propose to amend 50 CFR 23.15(c)(3)(i) to incorporate this change. The Parties also agreed to a new quota-setting process for caviar from shared stocks, including a change in the quota year so that it will coincide with the harvest season rather than the calendar year. Previously, under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13), “Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish,” caviar from shared stocks subject to quotas (i.e., the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Amur River basins) had to be exported by the end of the calendar year in which it was harvested and processed. At CoP14, the Parties agreed that, from 2008 onward, the quota year will begin on the first of March and end on the last day of February of the following year. Exports of caviar from shared stocks subject to quotas must take place during the quota year in which the caviar is harvested and processed. In addition, the sturgeon resolution was amended to specifically state that quotas must not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and to remove the requirement that the Secretariat must confirm that the quotas have been agreed to by all relevant countries (see Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14)). These changes were adopted by consensus at CoP14. We propose to amend 50 CFR 23.71(d) to reflect the relevant changes to the quota-setting process for caviar from shared stocks. Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , we have published a direct final rule to promulgate the same regulatory changes to 50 CFR part 23 as proposed here. We published the direct final rule because these changes are non-controversial and we anticipate no significant adverse public comment. Therefore we had good cause to find that standard notice and public comment procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. If we receive no significant adverse comments regarding these amendments on or before the comment due date specified in the DATES section of this document and the direct final rule, then these changes will become effective on the effective date specified in the DATES section of the direct final rule, and we will take no further action on this proposed rule. If we do receive significant adverse comments, then this proposed rule initiates the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Required Determinations *Regulatory Planning and Review* : This is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). a. This proposed rule would not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect a part of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. This proposed rule reduces the quantity of sturgeon or paddlefish caviar that an individual may import or export under the personal effects exemption (i.e., without a CITES document) from 250 grams to 125 grams. The personal effects exemption applies only to specimens for personal use that are hand-carried or checked as personal baggage on the same boat, plane, etc., as the traveler. This proposed rule also informs the public of a change in the quota-setting process and timeframe for export of caviar from shared stocks (i.e., the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Amur River basins). Publication of this proposed rule would assist U.S. businesses in complying with CITES requirements when engaging in international trade in sturgeon and paddlefish caviar. We do not expect that this proposed rule would have a significant effect on the volume or dollar value of sturgeon or paddlefish caviar imported, exported, or re-exported to and from the United States. There is no indication that this proposed rule would result in statistically significant higher or lower levels of trade, permit applications, or permit issuance or denial. An economic analysis is not necessary for this proposed rule as it would not have an economic impact on large or small entities. b. This proposed rule would not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. As the lead agency for implementing CITES in the United States, we are responsible for monitoring imports and exports of CITES wildlife and plants, including their parts, products, and derivatives, and issuing import and export documents under CITES. c. This proposed rule would not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. d. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues. As a Party to CITES, the United States is committed to fully and effectively implementing the Convention. All sturgeon and paddlefish (Acipenseriformes) are listed under CITES. This proposed rule informs individuals and businesses of provisions adopted at the most recent CoP for international trade in sturgeon and paddlefish caviar. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* : Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for ‘‘significant impact'' and a threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is below an established size standard. We expect that the majority of the entities involved with international caviar trade would be considered small as defined by the SBA. The declared value for U.S. international trade in sturgeon and paddlefish caviar was $13.4 million in 2005 and $13.7 million in 2006. This proposed rule creates no substantial fee or paperwork changes in the permitting process. The regulatory changes are not major in scope and would create only a modest financial or paperwork burden on the affected members of the general public. This proposed rule would benefit businesses engaged in international caviar trade by providing updated regulations for the international trade of CITES specimens. We do not expect these benefits to be significant under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The authority to enforce CITES requirements already exists under the Endangered Species Act and is carried out by regulations contained in 50 CFR part 23. The requirements that must be met to import, export, and re-export CITES species are based on the text of CITES, which has been in effect in the United States since 1975. We therefore certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. *Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act* : This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This proposed rule provides the importing and exporting community in the United States with updated regulations implementing CITES. This proposed rule would not have a negative effect on this part of the economy. It would affect all caviar importers, exporters, and re-exporters equally, and the benefits of having updated guidance on complying with CITES requirements would be evenly spread among all businesses, whether large or small. There is not a disproportionate share of benefits for small or large businesses. b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This proposed rule may result in a small increase in the number of applications for import/export of caviar for personal use. Under the proposed rule, a CITES document would be required for any amount of caviar over 125g (a reduction from the 250g currently allowed without a permit under the personal effects exemption). c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed rule would assist U.S. businesses and individuals traveling abroad in ensuring that they are meeting all current CITES requirements, thereby decreasing the possibility that shipments may be delayed or even seized in another country that has implemented CITES resolutions not yet incorporated into U.S. regulations. *Unfunded Mandates Reform Act* : Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, *et seq.* ): a. This proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As the lead agency for implementing CITES in the United States, we are responsible for monitoring import and export of CITES wildlife and plants, including their parts, products, and derivatives, and issuing import and export documents under CITES. The structure of the program imposes no unfunded mandates. Therefore, this proposed rule would have no effect on small governments' responsibilities. b. This proposed rule would not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million or greater in any year and is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. *Takings* : Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This proposed rule is not considered to have takings implications because it would not further restrict the import, export, or re-export of CITES specimens. Import, export, and re-export of caviar in amounts greater than 125 grams will still be allowed with the appropriate CITES documents. The proposed rule would update the regulations for the import, export, and re-export of CITES specimens, which would assist the importing and exporting community in conducting international trade in CITES specimens. *Federalism* : These proposed revisions to part 23 do not contain significant Federalism implications. A Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 is not required. *Civil Justice Reform* : Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. *Paperwork Reduction Act* : This proposed rule does not contain any new information collections or recordkeeping requirements for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. *National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)* : The FWS has determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review as provided by 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.9, of the Department of the Interior National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures (69 FR 10866, March 8, 2004). No further documentation will be made. *Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes* : Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects. Individual tribal members must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who trade internationally in CITES species. *Energy Supply, Distribution or Use* : On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This proposed rule would revise the current regulations in 50 CFR part 23 that implement CITES. The regulations provide procedures to assist individuals and businesses that import, export, and re-export CITES wildlife and plants, and their parts, products, and derivatives, to meet international requirements. This proposed rule would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. *Clarity of this regulation* : We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a)Be logically organized;
(b)Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c)Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d)Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e)Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. Public Comments We are seeking comments on whether the provisions in this proposed rule allow the affected public to effectively comply with CITES. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information-on *http://www.regulations.gov* . If you provide personal identifying information in your written comments you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on *http://www.regulations.gov* , or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Division of Management Authority; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212; Arlington, VA 22203; telephone,
(703)358-2093. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23 Animals, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Fish, Foreign officials, Foreign trade, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife. Proposed Regulation Promulgation For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter B of the CFR as follows: PART 23 - [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows: Authority: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (March 3, 1973), 27 U.S.T. 1087; and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* § 23.15 [Amended] 2. Amend § 23.15 (c)(3)(i), the first entry in the table, by removing the words “250 gm” in the Quantity column and by adding in their place the words “125 gm.” 3. Amend § 23.71(d) by removing paragraph (d)(4) and revising paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows: § 23.71 How can I trade internationally in sturgeon caviar?
(d)* * *
(1)The relevant countries have established annual export quotas for the shared stocks that were derived from catch quotas agreed among the countries. The quotas are based on an appropriate regional conservation strategy and monitoring regime and are not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
(2)The quotas have been communicated to the CITES Secretariat and the Secretariat has communicated the annual export quotas to CITES Parties.
(3)The caviar is exported during the quota year (March 1 - last day of February) in which it was harvested and processed. Dated: June 5, 2008 David M. Verhey Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks [FR Doc. E8-16198 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-S 73 138 Thursday, July 17, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 14, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* Food Stamp Redemption Certificate. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-0085. *Summary of Collection:* The Food Stamp Act of 1977 requires the Department of Agriculture to issue regulations that provide for the redemption of coupons accepted by retail food stores through approved wholesale food concerns or through insured financial institutions. The Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)will provide authorized retail stores and wholesale food concerns with redemption certificates. The Redemption Certificate and Wholesaler Redemption Certificate
(RCs)are used by all authorized wholesalers or retailers when depositing food stamp coupons, and are processed by financial institutions when they are presented for credit or for cash. The issuance of food stamp benefits through the Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT)system has replaced the issuance of food coupons. *Need and Use of the Information* : The Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS)will collect information on the verification of the amount of coupons forwarded to the bank for redemption. RCs are distributed to each authorized retailer or wholesaler by FNS for completion. FNS uses the deposit information from the RC to monitor
(1)deposits by retailer and wholesale food concerns, and
(2)for store monitoring and compliance purposes. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 679. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 32. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16362 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Board of Evaluators: Nominations AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Board of Evaluators: Nominations. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that nominations are being sought for six
(6)qualified persons to serve on the Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Board of Evaluators (Board). The role of the Board is to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with advice and recommendations for the selection of recipients of the Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Award. DATES: Written nominations must be received on or before September 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send all nominating materials to Mr. Dale Miller, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, Mail Stop 1020, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dale Miller, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, Mail Stop 1020, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1020, telephone
(202)690-0752, *e-mail: dale.miller@fas.usda* . Form AD-755 is required and is available at the FAS home page: *http://www.fas.usda.gov/admin/ad755.pdf* . Form SF-181 is requested, but optional, and is available at *http://www.fas.usda.gov/admin/sf181.pdf* . Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is authorized by Section 261(h) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The overall purpose of the Board is to provide the Secretary of Agriculture with advice and recommendations for the selection of recipients of the Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Award. The Board is composed of six
(6)representatives from the private sector selected for their knowledge and experience in exporting U.S. agricultural products. More information about the purpose and function of the Board can be found at: *http://www.fas.usda.ov/info/madigan/madigan.asp* . The members of the Board are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve at the discretion of the Secretary. Board members serve at their own expense; they are not compensated for their services and do not receive per diem or travel funds. Three
(3)members will be selected for 2-year term maximum and three
(3)others for 3-year term maximum. The Secretary may renew an appointment for one or more additional terms. The Board shall meet as often as the Secretary of Agriculture deems necessary either in person or via teleconference to review nominations and make recommendations. Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that the work of the Board takes into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the interest of minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Members are selected primarily for their knowledge and experience in exporting U.S. agricultural products. No person, company, producer, farm organization, trade association, or other entity has a right to representation on the Board. In making selections, every effort will be made to maintain balanced representation of the various broad industries within the United States as well as geographic diversity. Dated: June 27, 2008. Michael W. Yost, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. [FR Doc. E8-16382 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Subsistence Harvest Patterns in Prince William Sound AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the new information collection: Subsistence Harvest Patterns in Prince William Sound. DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before September 15, 2008, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Aaron Poe, Glacier Ranger District, Chugach National Forest, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 129, Forest Station Road, Girdwood, AK 99587. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 907-783-2094 or by e-mail to: *apoe@fs.fed.us.* The public may inspect comments received at Glacier Ranger District, 145 Forest Station Road, Girdwood, Alaska during normal business hours; 0800-1700 Monday through Friday. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 907-783-3242 to facilitate entry to the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Poe at
(907)783-3242. Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Subsistence Harvest Patterns in Prince William Sound. *OMB Number:* 0596-New. *Type of Request:* New. *Abstract:* In 1989, Prince William Sound (PWS), the heart of the Chugach National Forest (CNF), was severely impacted by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS). In the aftermath of the spill, Federal and state trustees were awarded criminal and civil restitution funds to help with the recovery (and the evaluation of the recovery) of injured resources and human services, including traditional practices of subsistence harvest, which is still listed as “recovering.” For the current list of injured resources and services, please visit the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council's Web site at *http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Publications/injuredresources.cfm.* The CNF, as the major land-owning Federal trustee in PWS, plays an important role in the recovery process. One area of critical importance to CNF managers, which has received less attention by researchers, is the distribution, behavior, and experience of human users throughout the Sound and the impact of these users on EVOS recovering resources and services. Recreation use is increasing in the Sound, and there is concern that increased competition and rapid growth in commercial and independent recreation may be negatively impacting subsistence activities through direct competition for resources from sport fishers and hunters, but also indirectly by displacing subsistence harvesters from traditional harvest areas. Understanding the subsistence harvest patterns in the Sound will add critical depth to the few existing PWS human use studies by:
(1)Describing the exact nature of overlap between subsistence and recreation use in Sound,
(2)Helping managers better understand the dynamics around the resulting interactions between these two important user groups, and
(3)Allowing managers to anticipate potential conflicts. Conflicts between user groups have significant implications for EVOS impacted resources and services. Conflicts can diminish quality of life/experience for both subsistence and recreation groups (each already harmed by the spill) and push harvest and recreation activities into previously unused areas, potentially negatively affecting the 25 impacted and recovering resources. The results of this survey (funded by EVOS criminal restitution dollars) will provide information on recovery and restoration activities undertaken by both the EVOS trustees and local resource managers relative to current and projected levels of human use. The study provides an excellent opportunity to assess the recovery of the subsistence human service injured and redistributed by the EVOS, as well as how CNF managers can further enhance recovery. Residents from the four communities of PWS who are subsistence eligible (Chenega, Cordova, Tatitlek, and Whittier) will be consulted through individual household interviews conducted by current community institutions (that is, Tribal or community councils). Respondents will describe harvest practices and any recent changes in such activities due to other users or changes in species availability. Researchers from the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and University of Arizona will collect and analyze the data collected, then compare the data to information on recreation activities to identify the location and timing of potential interactions between subsistence harvesters and recreation users. Forest Service managers will use the resulting analysis to define baseline harvest patterns for the Prince William Sound, giving decision makers insight into the recovery of this important human service (redistributed around the Sound in the aftermath of EVOS). This information will allow managers to mitigate potential conflicts. Further, study results may assist in the identification of potential changing resource harvest dynamics during a time of increasing human use in the Prince William Sound. *Estimate of Annual Burden:* 30 minutes. *Type of Respondents:* Individuals—(heads of households). *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 250. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent:* One. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 125 hours. Comment Is Invited Comment is invited on:
(1)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval. Dated: July 11, 2008. Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief. [FR Doc. E8-16361 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico, Motorized Travel Management Plan AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Santa Fe National Forest (Forest) will prepare an environmental impact statement to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motorized travel by class of vehicle and time of year, in accordance with the Agency's 2005 Travel Management Rule. As part of the proposal, the Forest will also address the use of motor vehicles for dispersed camping and big game retrieval. Once a decision is made about which roads, trails, and areas will be open to motorized use, motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited. The designated roads, trails, and areas will be published on a motor vehicle use map, which will serve as the primary tool for compliance and enforcement. This notice summarizes the proposal, opportunities for public participation, decisions to be made, and estimated dates for publication of documents associated with the project. DATES: Comments about the proposal should be submitted within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . The Forest expects to publish the draft environmental impact statement in June 2009 and the final environmental impact statement in September 2009. For public meeting dates, refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Julie Bain, Project Leader, Santa Fe National Forest Travel Management Planning, 1474 Rodeo Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Fax comments to
(505)438-7834. Send electronic comments to *comments-southwestern-santafe@fs.fed.us* with “Travel Management” in the subject line. Electronic attachments must be in one of the following formats: .doc, .rtf, .txt, or .pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Process Information:* Julie Bain, Project Leader, Santa Fe National Forest, at
(505)438-7829 or *sftravelmgt@fs.fed.us.* *Technical Information:* Diane Taliaferro, Recreation Program Manager, Santa Fe National Forest, at
(505)438-7823 or *sftravelmgt@fs.fed.us.* The proposed action, maps, and other pertinent information about this project can be found on the Forest's Web site: *http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/travelmgt/index.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* People use motor vehicles to access the Santa Fe National Forest for a number of activities, such as hiking, horseback riding, hunting, camping, sightseeing, viewing wildlife, fishing, and collecting firewood or other forest products. People also use vehicles for administrative and commercial activities such as logging, grazing management, and utility maintenance. The Forest Service has identified four major threats to the national forests and grasslands:
(1)The risk of catastrophic fire,
(2)the loss of open space,
(3)invasive species, and
(4)unmanaged recreation, including the effects of unmanaged off-highway vehicles (OHVs). In response to the latter, on November 9, 2005 the Forest Service published final travel management regulations governing OHVs and other motor vehicles on national forests and grasslands. The Travel Management Rule requires that national forests designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle, and if appropriate, by time of year. The designated roads, trails, and areas will be published on a motor vehicle use map for the public's use. After routes and areas are designated and the motor vehicle use map published, motor vehicle use not in accordance with these designations will be prohibited. The Travel Management Rule also addresses the use of vehicles to access campsites and retrieve big game. *Proposed Action:* The full text and maps of the proposed action are located on the Forest's Web site at *http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/travelmgt/index.html.* Under the proposed action, the Forest would do the following: Change forest policy regarding motorized travel, designate a system of roads, trails, and areas, designate motorized access to dispersed camping, and limit the motorized retrieval of downed big game to the designated system. Each action is described below. *Forest Policy:* The Santa Fe National Forest proposes to amend its current forest plan direction so that it complies with the Travel Management Rule and to update language related to management of the transportation system. The proposed action would: • Designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by the public by class of vehicle and time of year pursuant to section 212.51. • Prohibit travel off the designated system pursuant to section 251.13. • Remove the minimum open road density standard from all management areas. • Amend the maximum open road density standard for specific units within management areas not meeting the open road density currently listed in the forest plan. • Remove quantitative goals for road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning. *Roads:* To reduce the negative effects to national forest system lands and resources from excessive or poorly situated roads and still provide motorized access, the Santa Fe National Forest proposes to designate 2,309 miles of the existing 4,924 miles of roads for motorized travel by the public by class of vehicle and season of use. This would reduce the number of miles authorized for motor vehicle use from the existing direction by 2,615 miles, equal to a 53% reduction. The 2,309 miles proposed for designation includes 17 miles of unauthorized roads, 90 miles of closed forest roads, 9 miles of previously decommissioned roads, 73 miles of non-system roads, and 7 miles of undetermined roads. The remaining 2,113 miles proposed for designation are existing forest roads. *Motorized Trails:* To provide opportunities for managed motorized recreation, the Santa Fe National Forest proposes to designate 247 miles of trail for motorized use. One hundred and five miles would be for ATVs and motorcycles, and 142 miles would be for motorcycles only. Additionally, approximately 2,040 miles of roads, some of which are coincident with trails, would also be available for use by ATVs and motorcycles. This proposal would close some existing trails to motorized use, or not designate some trails, that are currently being used for such. It would designate approximately 71 miles of unauthorized trails. The proposal would convert the following miles of road to trail: 49 miles of closed forest roads, 13 miles of previously decommissioned roads, 7 miles of non-system roads, and 1 mile of undetermined road. The remaining 103 miles proposed for designation are existing forest trails. *Motorized Areas:* To reduce the negative effects caused by vehicles traveling cross-country, the Santa Fe National Forest proposes to designate approximately 50 acres for motorized cross-country use. Cross-country motorized travel outside of these areas will be prohibited. On the Jemez Ranger District, the Forest proposes 12 small areas totaling approximately 40 acres for motorcycle use. To access these areas, people would use designated motorized single-track trails. A trials motorcycle group has used these areas for competitive events under a special use permit for the last several years. Their attractiveness for cross-country travel lies in the large boulders and rocky terrain, where riders test their technical abilities at slow speeds. On the Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District, the Forest proposes ten areas, generally one acre or less to provide motorized dispersed camping in locations that are already well used for this activity. The Travel Management Rule does not differentiate among types of uses within a designated area, so vehicle use would not be limited to camping. *Motorized Access to Dispersed Camping:* To reduce the risk of future damage to natural and heritage resources, the Santa Fe National Forest proposes to designate motorized access to dispersed camping. The Forest used three methods to designate access to motorized dispersed camping:
(1)Designating specific routes leading to dispersed campsites;
(2)designating areas; and
(3)designating corridors along certain roads pursuant to section 212.51(b). Parking safely next to the side of a designated road and using non-motorized means to get to a campsite will continue to be allowed throughout the Forest. The Forest's intent is to designate access to those areas where people are already camping, unless substantial resource damage is occurring. The Forest proposes to designate 150-foot corridors on either side of 437 miles of road and 8 miles of trail, and 300-foot corridors on either side of the road along 71 miles of road. The roads leading to dispersed campsites beyond these designated distances are proposed individually for designation. *Motorized Access to Retrieve Downed Big Game:* Recognizing that any OHV use off designated roads and trails has the potential to stimulate additional unintended use and subsequent habitat degradation, the Santa Fe National Forest proposes to limit the use of motor vehicles to retrieve downed game to designated routes only. No corridors to retrieve big game with a motorized vehicle are being proposed. *Responsible Official:* The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor, Santa Fe National Forest, 1474 Rodeo Road, P.O. Box 1689, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1689. *Nature of Decision To Be Made:* Based on the environmental analysis, the forest supervisor will decide:
(1)Which roads, trails, and areas will be designated for motorized use by the public by vehicle class and time of year;
(2)where to designate motorized access for dispersed camping; and
(3)whether to designate motorized access to retrieve downed game; and
(4)what forest plan amendments to adopt. *Scoping Process:* This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the development of the draft environmental impact statement. The Forest invites written comments and suggestions on the proposed action, including any issues to consider, as well as any concerns relevant to the analysis. The Forest encourages electronic correspondence on this proposed action. Forest staff will also conduct a series of public meetings: 1. Mora-Cleveland area: Monday, July 28, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., CHET Fire Department, Highway 518, Cleveland, New Mexico. 2. Coyote: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Coyote Elementary School, W. Highway 96, Coyote, New Mexico. 3. Las Vegas: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., West Kennedy Hall, NMHU, University Avenue, Las Vegas, New Mexico. 4. Jemez: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Valles Caldera Conference Room, 18161 Highway 4, Jemez Springs, New Mexico. 5. Rowe-Pecos area: Saturday, August 2, 2008, 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Pecos Middle School Cafeteria, N. Highway 63, Pecos, New Mexico. 6. Peña Blanca: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Peña Blanca Community Center Gym, 778 Highway 22, Peña Blanca, New Mexico. 7. Glorieta, Eldorado, Cañoncito, Hondo area: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Hondo Volunteer Fire Department, 645 Old Las Vegas Highway, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 8. Cuba: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Cuba Senior Center, 16A Cordova Street, Cuba, New Mexico. 9. Santa Fe: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Unitarian Universalist Congregation, 107 W. Barcelona Rd., Santa Fe, New Mexico. 10. Los Alamos: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Fuller Lodge, 2132 Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico. 11. Española: Monday, August 18, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Española Ranger Station, 1710 N. Riverside Drive, Española, New Mexico. 12. Rio Rancho: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., Destiny Center, 4401 Northern Blvd., NE., Rio Rancho, New Mexico. 13. Albuquerque: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 6-8:30 p.m., UNM Conference Center, Room B, 1634 University Blvd., NE., Albuquerque, NM. The meetings set aside time for informal discussions, a presentation, map review, and asking questions. *Contacts at Ranger Districts:* The district rangers listed below can answer site-specific questions on the proposal. Coyote Ranger District: Francisco Sanchez,
(575)638-5526. Cuba Ranger District: Jim Eaton or Derek Padilla,
(575)289-3264. Jemez Ranger District: Linda Riddle,
(575)829-3535. Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District: Steve Romero,
(505)757-6121 or
(505)425-3535. Española Ranger District: Sandy Hurlocker,
(505)753-7331. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be a minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: July 2, 2008. Daniel J. Jiron, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-16374 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting about a presentation “Climate Change Solutions: Where do we go from here?” given by Dr. Faith Ann Heinsch, and hold a short public forum (question and answer session). The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393). The meeting is open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 22, 2008, 6:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bitterroot National Forest Supervisors Office, 1801 North First, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Daniel G. Ritter, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile
(406)777-7423, or electronically to *dritter@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel G. Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone:
(406)777-5461. Dated: July 7, 2008. David T. Bull, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-16220 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Revised Notice of Meetings, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee AGENCIES: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. ACTION: Revised notice of meetings of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee for 2008 and 2009. SUMMARY: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee (Monument Advisory Committee) will meet as indicated below. DATES: • September 15, 2008. • March 16, 2009. • September 21, 2009. All meetings of the Monument Advisory Committee will start at 3 p.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: Meetings of the Monument Advisory Committee will be held at the County of Riverside Permit Assistance Center, Second Floor Conference Room, 38686 El Cerrito Road, Palm Desert, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Foote, Monument Manager, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, c/o Bureau of Land Management, 690 West Garnet Ave., P.O. Box 581260, North Palm Springs, CA 92258; telephone
(760)251-4800; facsimile message
(760)251-4899; e-mail *jfoote@ca.blm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice identifies a change in meeting dates and times for the remainder of 2008, as published in the **Federal Register** on August 23, 2007, and identifies meeting dates for 2009. While the September 6, 2008 meeting has been changed to September 15, 2008, the meeting of December 6, 2008 is cancelled. Meetings of the Monument Advisory Committee focus on implementation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Management Plan (2004). All meetings are open to the public. A public comment period when members of the public may address the Monument Advisory Committee will occur at 4 p.m. during each meeting. Written comments may be sent to the Monument Manager at the address shown above; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public. Dated: July 9, 2008. John R. Kalish, Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, California Desert District, Bureau of Land Management. Dated: July 9, 2008. Laurie Rosenthal, District Ranger, San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E8-16337 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Deschutes National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of Proposed New Fee Sites. SUMMARY: The Deschutes National Forest is planning to charge fees at eleven recreation sites. Most of the sites have recently been reconstructed and upgraded. There are plans to add amenities to all sites in order to improve services and experiences. With the exception of Fall River Guard Station, all sites will be administered according to the current fee structure on the Deschutes National Forest which requires a Recreation Pass for parking. Day use fees would be five dollars and recreation passes, such as the Annual Recreation Fee Pass or Interagency Pass would continue to be honored. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, market assessment, and public comment. The fees listed are only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these recreation sites. Fall River Guard Station will be available for overnight rental. Cabin rentals offer a unique experience and are a widely popular offering on National Forests. The rental fee will be between $70 and $100 a night. Fall River Guard Station is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the nomination process is currently being completed. The cabin has been recently renovated and the last phases are almost finished. A campground style toilet will be installed and renters will be responsible for bringing their own water. The cabin will be ready for rental in September, 2008. Fees would continue to help protect and maintain the historic integrity of this cabin. Simax Beach consists of two beach areas that are divided by a rock jetty. One beach allows dogs and the other beach does not. Both beaches have picnic tables, bulletin boards, a paved parking area, a paved road, fire rings, toilets, garbage collection, and a portal sign. Tranquil Cove is a day use picnic area with a parking lot, a toilet, picnic tables and fire rings. Spring Boat Launch has a paved parking lot, docks, signs, garbage collection and a toilet. Crescent Lake Boat Launch has a paved parking lot, docks, signs, garbage collection and a toilet. The Windy-Oldenberg Trailhead has a large parking lot, an interpretive kiosk, toilets, and garbage collection. Trapper Creek Boat Launch has interpretive signs, a parking area, a dock, a toilet, and garbage collection. The Whitefish Creek Trailhead is at the back of a horse camp with a small parking lot that is only capable of holding two or three truck and trailer combinations. The site is unable to handle the amount of current use and there are plans to relocate it to a better location with adequate parking, toilets and garbage collection. Princess Creek Boat Launch has a picnic area, a parking area, docks, a toilet, and garbage collection. Sunset Cove Boat Launch has a large paved parking lot, a dock that provides for disabled access, interpretive signs, a fish cleaning station, a toilet, and garbage collection. Willamette Pass/Rosary Trailhead has a parking area, a toilet and a signboard. DATES: New fees would begin in May of 2009, contingent upon completion of certain improvements. ADDRESSES: John Allen, Forest Supervisor, Deschutes National Forest, 1001 SW., Emkay Drive, Bend, OR 97702. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Moscoso, Recreation Fee Coordinator, 541-383-4712. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Dated: July 11, 2008. John Allen, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-16383 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, Pima County, AZ AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.6. ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Interest and Eligibility of Federal and Non-Federal Cooperating Agencies. SUMMARY: USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest is soliciting the interest and eligibility of potential federal and non-federal (tribal, state, and local governments and their agencies) in participating as cooperating agencies in the environmental study of the Mine Plan of Operation for the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, Pima County, Arizona. DATES: USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest requests written responses of interest and eligibility from potential federal and non-federal cooperating agencies by August 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this notice, please contact Ms. Reta Laford, Deputy Forest Supervisor, at
(520)388-8300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed Rosemont Copper Mine would extract and process ores from the Rosemont Deposit located approximately 30 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The mine and associated facilities would encompass approximately 4,500 acres in public and private ownerships in Pima County, Arizona. The Coronado National Forest, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, published a Notice of Intent in the **Federal Register** ( *http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/documents/rosemont-noi-022 82008.pdf* ) to prepare an environmental impact statement on Rosemont Copper Company's Mine Plan of Operations. In March 2008, several agencies also received a scoping notice about this project. Briefly, the proposed action is to construct and operate an open-pit copper mine and associated processing facilities, including access roads, required utilities, and to reclaim affected lands. A full description of the proposed action (Mine Plan of Operation) may be viewed at: *http://www.rosemontcopper.com/operations2.asp.* The USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest is inquiring about federal and non-federal agency's interest and eligibility in serving as a cooperating agency. Federal and non-federal agencies interested in being a cooperating agency on this project should have jurisdiction by law (40 CFR 1508.15) and/or special expertise (40 CFR 1508.26) to contribute to the environmental study. By August 29, 2008, federal and non-federal agency's desiring to cooperate in the environmental study of this Mine Plan of Operation should respond to this solicitation of interest with a written description of their interest and reasons for potential eligibility. Written responses should be sent to: USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, Attn: Rosemont Copper Project, 300 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Upon receipt of responses, the Coronado Forest Supervisor will make a determination of eligibility. Agencies that express interest, but for which eligibility is unclear, will be contacted for additional information. Agencies determined to be interested and eligible will receive a formal letter of invitation to be a cooperating agency. Additional information about the roles and responsibilities of cooperating agencies is available on the Council of Environmental quality Web site: Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies from James Connaughton, Chair: *http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepalregs/cooperating/cooperatingagenciesmemorandum.html.* Attachment 1—Factors for Determining Whether to Invite, Decline or End Cooperating Agency Status: *http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepalregs/cooperating/cooperatingagencymemofactors.html.* Identifying Non-Federal Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act: *http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepalregs/000925letter.html.* Questions or concerns about the Mine Plan of Operation or agencies' respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this environmental study should be directed to Deputy Forest Supervisor, Reta Laford. Ms. Laford may be reached via telephone at
(520)388-8300. Dated: July 9, 2008, Jeanine A. Derby, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8-16314 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 88-10A16] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America (“WMMA”). SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”) to the Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America (“WMMA”) on July 9, 2008. WMMA's application to amend its Certificate was announced in the **Federal Register** on April 21, 2008 (73 FR 21316). The original Certificate No. 88-00016 was issued to WMMA on February 3, 1989, and announced in the **Federal Register** on February 9, 1989 (54 FR 6312). The most recent amendment, No. 88-9A016, was issued to WMMA on August 8, 2005, and announced in the **Federal Register** on August 12, 2005 (70 FR 47178). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Amended Certificate WMMA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to: 1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Mattison Rotary Lathes, LLC, La Center, Kentucky; Safety Speed Cut Manufacturing Company, Inc., Ham Lake, Minnesota; Western Cutterheads, Inc., La Center, Kentucky. 2. Reinstate as a “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): The Original Saw Co. (“OSC”), Britt, Iowa. OSC ceased to be a Member on April 12, 2007, when WMMA submitted an annual report that relinquished OSC's membership. WMMA seeks to reinstate OSC as a Member of the Certificate. 3. Delete the following company as a “Member” of WMMA's Certificate: Warsaw Machinery, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana. The effective date of the amended certificate is April 10, 2008, the date on which WMMA's application to amend was deemed submitted. A copy of the amended Certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: July 11, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-16285 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The Manufacturing Council: Meeting AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Supplemental Notice of a Meeting. SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting to discuss the Sustainable Manufacturing Initiative and the Manufacturing 2040 project. DATES: July 23, 2008. *Time:* 2 p.m. (EDT). ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Manufacturing Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 ( *Phone:* 202-482-1369), or visit the Council's Web site at *http://www.manufacturing.gov/council.* Dated: July 11, 2008. Kate Sigler, Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council. [FR Doc. E8-16284 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-601 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the twentieth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (“TRBs”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Apodaca or Paul Stolz, 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)482-4551 and
(202)482-4474, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 26, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 30542 (June 1, 2007). On June 29, 2007, Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (“Koyo”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the duty order for entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Yantai Timken Company Limited (“Yantai Timken”). Additionally, on June 29, 2007, Peer Bearing Company Changshan (“CPZ”), an exporter of TRBs, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. On July 26, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of TRBs from the PRC for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007, for CPZ and Yantai Timken. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). On September 4, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to CPZ and Yantai Timken. On October 5, 2007, the Department requested interested parties to submit comments on surrogate values. On October 19, 2007, we received a surrogate country submission from the Timken Company (“Petitioner”). On November 1, 2007, the Department received a surrogate values submission from Petitioner. On April 14, 2008, we received corrected factor values from Petitioner. On June 3, 2008, the Department received additional surrogate values from CPZ. On June 13, 2008, Petitioner submitted comments to the Department in response to CPZ's surrogate value comments. On March 4, 2008, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until June 30, 2008. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 11617 (March 4, 2008). CPZ CPZ submitted its Section A questionnaire response on October 3, 2007, its Section C response on October 31, 2007, and its Section D response on November 5, 2007. The Department issued a Sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire to CPZ on April 2, 2008. CPZ submitted its Sections A, C and D supplemental questionnaire response on April 29, 2008. Yantai Timken Yantai Timken submitted a letter to the Department dated September 25, 2007, stating that it will not be filing a questionnaire response as it had only a few exports to the United States, which were for use by its parent company, the Timken Company. *See* Letter from Yantai Timken to Department of Commerce, dated September 25, 2007 (“Non-Participation Letter”). Period of Review The POR is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15 and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 71 FR 2517 (January 17, 2006). No party to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”) when available information does not permit NV to be determined under section 773(a) of the Act. The Act further instructs the Department to value FOPs based on the best available information in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. See Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. *See* Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, the Department normally values all FOPs in a single surrogate country. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the surrogate values (“SVs”) are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum to the File, “Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review,” dated June 30, 2008 (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”), which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building. The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt and Sri Lanka are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert Bolling; Antidumping Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished (“Bearings”), from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated October 3, 2007. Once the economically comparable countries have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether one of these countries is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable. On October 19, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments on the surrogate country selection. Petitioner stated that India is the appropriate surrogate country because India is at a comparable economic level with the PRC and is a significant producer of subject merchandise. We have determined it appropriate to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following:
(A)India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, and
(B)India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. Thus, we have calculated NV using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value CPZ's FOPs. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation/review 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. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *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 further developed in the *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* ”). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. The sole participating company in this review, CPZ, stated that it is a China-Foreign joint venture, owned by two shareholders: Changshan Jingmi Bearing Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, and Illinois Peer Bearing Company LLC, a U.S. company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether CPZ has demonstrated the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities, and is entitled to a separate rate. a. Absence of *De Jure* Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by CPZ supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control based on the following:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the company; and
(3)there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of the company. *See* CPZ's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated October 3, 2007. b. Absence of *De Facto* Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control over export activities which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine for CPZ that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)CPZ sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)CPZ retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)CPZ has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)CPZ has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See* CPZ's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated October 3, 2007. The evidence placed on the record of this review by CPZ demonstrates an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . Therefore, we are granting CPZ a separate rate. Application of Facts Available Sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provide that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested,
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act* , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994)(“ *SAA* ”), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Application of Total Adverse Facts Available Yantai Timken On September 4, 2007, the Department issued its original questionnaire to Yantai Timken. On September 25, 2007, Yantai Timken stated it will not be filing a questionnaire response in this administrative review because it had only a few exports, which were for use by its parent company, Timken, and therefore had no commercial exports during the year. *See* Non-Participation Letter. Furthermore, Yantai Timken reported that its U.S. sales of subject merchandise (from pre-existing U.S. inventory) were few in number and small in value. Moreover, Yantai Timken stated that given the small volume of exports and sales it made during the POR, it has determined to forgo the expense of preparing and filing a questionnaire response. Because Yantai Timken failed to submit a questionnaire response, the Department was unable to conduct a separate-rate analysis of Yantai Timken. Accordingly, the Department finds that Yantai Timken has not demonstrated its entitlement to a separate rate and is, therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. The PRC-Wide Entity Because Yantai Timken did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, and therefore did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate-rate status, the Department is treating this PRC producer/exporter as part of the PRC-wide entity. Additionally, because we have determined that Yantai Timken is part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity is now under review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we further find that because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested by the Department, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using facts otherwise available on the record. Additionally, we determine that the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is appropriate because the PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's request for information. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In administrative reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of 2004/2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 52049, 52051 (September 12, 2007); *see also Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) have consistently upheld the Department's practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (“Rhone Poulenc”); *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004)(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 684
(2000)(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 2005 Ct. Int'l. Trade 23 *23; Slip Op. 05-22 (February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See SAA* at 890; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *see also D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)* . In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the Department's practice and the purposes of section 776(b) of the Act, as AFA, we are assigning the rate of 60.95 percent to the PRC-wide entity, which is the highest rate found in any segment of the proceeding. This rate was calculated for Premier Bearing and Equipment Ltd. (“Premier”) in the final results of redetermination on remand from the CIT for the seventh administrative review of TRBs covering the POR of June 1, 1993, to May 31, 1994. *Peer Bearing Co. v. United States* , slip op. 02-53 (CIT 2002); as upheld by the Federal Circuit in 78 Fed. Appx. 718 (Fed. Cir. 2003); *see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 79902 (December 31, 2002) (“ *TRBs Amended Final* ”), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10423 (March 5, 2004) (“ *TRBs Amended Final 2* ”). The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate, from the available sources, to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on secondary information to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate. *See* section 776(c) of the Act and the “Corroboration of Secondary Information” section below. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See SAA* at 870. The *SAA* states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative value information must be reliable and relevant. *See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 58642 (October 16, 2007). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See SAA* at 870; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the margin for Premier, pursuant to the final results of redetermination on remand from the CIT, for the seventh administrative review of TRBs (covering the POR of June 1, 1993, to May 31, 1994). *See TRBs Amended Final* and *TRBs Amended Final 2* . The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. *See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 (July 11, 2003). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information contained in the 1993-1994 review is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). To assess the relevancy of the rate used, the Department compared the margin calculations of CPZ in this administrative review to the 60.95 percent rate. The Department found that the margin of 60.95 percent was within the range of the margins calculated on the record of this administrative review. *See* Margin Calculation Program, dated June 30, 2008. Because the record of this administrative review contains margins within the range of 60.95 percent, we determine that the 60.95 percent rate continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review. As the adverse margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that this rate meets the corroboration criterion established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the margin is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity as AFA. Because these are preliminary results of review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for the PRC-wide entity. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of TRBs to the United States by CPZ were made at LTFV, we compared constructed export price (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d)of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for CPZ's sales where CPZ sold subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We calculated CEP for CPZ based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, ocean freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation, U.S. customs duty, where applicable, U.S. inland freight from port to the warehouse, and U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, we calculated CPZ's credit expenses and inventory carrying costs based on the Federal Reserve prime short-term rate. Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. See CPZ Preliminary Results of Administrative Review: Program Analysis Memorandum, dated June 30, 2008. In its first supplemental Section D questionnaire response, dated April 29, 2008, CPZ requested that the Department compare NV to CEP on a Product Code (“PRODCOD”) basis, claiming that calculating dumping margins using Control Number (“CONNUM”) is distortive. We have determined not to use PRODCOD as a basis for comparing NV to CEP because CPZ has not provided an explanation or data to demonstrate why using CONNUM is distortive. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have continued to use CONNUM to compare NV to CEP. Normal Value We compared NV to individual CEP transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if:
(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and
(2)the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited to:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by the respondent for materials, energy, labor and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill v. United States* , 268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs). With regard to both import-based SVs, and market-economy import values, it is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts developed in the United States or third country countervailing duty findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to find that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. *See China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003). In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized, but rather relies on information that is generally available at the time of its determination. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. The Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. Through other proceedings, the Department has learned that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, preliminarily finds it reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 72 FR 42386 (August 2, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Accordingly, the Department has disregarded prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating NV. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by CPZ for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). Unless indicated otherwise, we valued direct materials and packing materials using publicly available import data reported in the World Trade Atlas, published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. (“WTA”). In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate ( *i.e.* , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Circuit in *FederalSigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). CPZ reported that it sourced the steel that it used to produce cages within the PRC. Therefore, the Department used contemporaneous Indian import data from WTA online, published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, to calculate SVs for the reported FOPs purchased from NME sources. Among the FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian import statistics are steel, steel scrap, and anti-rust oil. For a detailed description of all SVs used for respondents, *see* Factor Valuation Memorandum. On June 3, 2008, CPZ submitted comments regarding SV selection for roller quality steel. CPZ argued that the SV data submitted by Petitioner is aberrational because the proposed HTS category does not specifically include bearing quality steel and the data is not contemporaneous with the POR. For the preliminary results, we have determined to use contemporaneous Indian import data from HTS category 7228.3029, as proposed by Petitioner, to calculate an SV for roller quality steel. We have preliminarily determined that, while the HTS category proposed by CPZ may have represented “other” types of bearing quality steel in the past, because the Indian HTS categories were revised in 2003, the HTS category proposed by Petitioner now represents “other” types of bearing quality steel. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POR exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the same period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period is equal to or below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. *See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments* , 71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006). Also, where the quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price. *Id* . During the POR, CPZ did not purchase any inputs from a market economy supplier. Where the Department could not obtain information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, the Department adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index available at the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, http://eaindustry.nic.in/. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value electricity, the Department used data from the International Energy Agency *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition). *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for inflation. For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, using 2005 data, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-051608.html#table1. The source of these wage-rate data is the International Labour Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics Database, Copyright International Labour Organization, 1998-2007 Yearbook, Selection: years: 2004-2005, Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by CPZ. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department used Indian transport information to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from the website www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. To value factory overhead, depreciation, selling, general and administrative expenses and profit, the Department used an audited financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2006, for an Indian producer of bearings, SKF India Limited (“SKF”). We did not rely upon one company's financial statement that was placed on the record, namely the financial statement of Timken India Ltd., because Timken India Ltd.'s financial statements identify the receipt of “export incentives” ( *i.e.* , DEPB Premium) in “Other Income.” India's DEPB Schemes have been found by the Department to provide a countervailable subsidy. *See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61592, 61597 (November 12, 1999) (unchanged in *Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000)); *see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html and Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from India* , 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 8. In *Crawfish from the PRC,* the Department noted that where it has reason to believe or suspect that a company may have received subsidies previously found by the Department to provide a countervailable subsidy, financial ratios derived from that company's financial statements do not constitute the best available information. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) (“ *Crawfish from the PRC* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Given the record information regarding Timken India Ltd.'s use of the DEPB program, and the fact that we have another acceptable financial statement to use as a surrogate, consistent with the Department's decision in *Crawfish from the PRC* , we have not used Timken India Ltd.'s financial data in our surrogate ratio calculations. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum for a full discussion of the calculation of SKF's ratios. The Department used three sources to calculate an SV for domestic brokerage expenses:
(1)data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (“Kejriwal”) in the investigation of certain lined paper products from India;
(2)data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India; and
(3)data from the February 28, 2005, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Essar Steel in the administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. Because these values were not concurrent with the POR of this review, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the WPI, and then calculated a simple average of the three companies' brokerage expense data. *See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 73 FR 4175 (January 24, 2008); *see also* Factor Valuation Memorandum. CPZ reported it recovered steel scrap from the production of cups, cones, rollers and cages for resale. However, CPZ did not claim an offset and its response is not clear regarding quantities generated and quantities sold. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we are not including a scrap offset in our margin calculation. We will issue a supplemental questionnaire regarding this issue and consider CPZ's response for the final results. Finally, we used POR Indian import statistics to value material inputs for packing which, for CPZ, are plastic film, plastic bags, plastic strip, plastic pad, paper box, carton, iron knot, iron sheet, iron strip, and pallet cover. *See* Factor Valuation Memorandum. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773(A)(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007: TRBs from the PRC Producer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Peer Bearing Company Changshan 59.41 PRC-wide entity* 60.95 *including Yantai Timken Disclosure and Public Comment The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than five days after the written comments are filed. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments and rebuttal comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing normally will be held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal comments. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value Information In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or after (if the Department has extended the deadline) the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct the factual information no later than ten days after such factual information is served on the interested party. However, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), the Department generally will not accept in the rebuttal submission additional, alternative SV information not previously on the record if the deadline for submission of such information has passed. *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part* , 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Furthermore, the Department generally will not accept business proprietary information in either the SV submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of SVs allows only for the submission of publicly available information. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or customer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Additionally, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties for the PRC-wide entity (including Yantai Timken) at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for CPZ, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash deposit will be required;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 60.95 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b). Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16376 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Scientific Research, Exempted Fishing, and Exempted Activity Submissions AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jason Blackburn,
(301)713-2341 or *Jason.Blackburn@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Fishery regulations do not generally affect scientific research activities conducted by a scientific research vessel. Any persons planning to conduct research must submit a scientific research plan to ensure that the activities are considered research and not fishing. The researchers are required to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)may also grant exemptions from fishery regulations for educational or other activities (e.g., the testing of fishing gear). The applications for these exemptions must be submitted, as well as reports on activities. II. Method of Collection Information may be submitted on paper or via e-mail, and in some cases by telephone. II. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0309. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; state, local or tribal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 91. *Estimated Time per Response:* Scientific research plans, 113 hours; scientific research reports, 3 hours; exempted fishing permit requests, 95 hours; exempted fishing permit reports, 47 hours; exempted educational requests, 3 hours; and exempted educational reports, 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 11,003. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $232. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: July 14, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16310 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Bottlenose Dolphin Conservation Outreach Survey AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Stacey Carlson,
(727)824-5312 or *Stacey.carolson@noaa.gov* and Michelle McGregor,
(301)713-1406 or *michelle.mcgregor@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The objective of these surveys is to assess the level of awareness on issues related to regulations preventing feeding/harassment of wild bottlenose dolphins, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In particular, the surveys are designed to determine what commercial operators and the general public know about specific regulations prohibiting feeding and harassment of bottlenose dolphins, and how they gained their knowledge and/or perceptions on the topic. The initial geographic region for this survey is Panama City, Florida, where numerous incidences of dolphin harassment and feeding have been documented. The intent is to also use this survey in other areas of the southeast region to gain a similar understanding and ensure outreach messages are appropriate for intended audiences. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 679 form the basis for this collection of information. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)will request information from local residents, tourists and commercial businesses through a one-time survey. This information, upon receipt, will be used to develop effective and better-targeted outreach efforts in order to enhance bottlenose dolphin conservation in Florida. II. Method of Collection Participants voluntarily complete paper questionnaires and methods of submittal include on-site, mail, and facsimile transmission of paper forms. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,200. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 600. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: July 14, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16311 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seat for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
(ONMS)National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DCC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is seeking applications for the following vacant seat on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (council): Tourism—Lower Keys (alternate). Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; residency in the Sanctuary area; and philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources. Applicants who are chosen for seats normally serve three-year terms, pursuant to the Council's charter. DATES: Applications are due by August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application packages may be obtained from the Sanctuary Advisory Council and Volunteer Coordinator at *Lilli.Ferguson@noaa.gov* , from the Web site at *http://www.floridakeys.noaa.gov* , by telephone at
(305)292-0311 x 245 or in writing to Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Rd., Key West, FL 33040. Completed applications should be sent to the same address listed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilli Ferguson at the above address, e-mail or telephone number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information concerning the council, including past meeting minutes and member contact information can be found at the Sanctuary Web site. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq* . (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: June 19, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15778 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS or sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (council): * Conservation (member) * . Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve two-to-three-year terms, pursuant to the council's Charter. DATES: Applications are due by 15 September 2008. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from *Elizabeth.Stokes@noaa.gov* or from Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066. Telephone 781-545-8026 X201. Completed applications should be sent to the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further questions contact: *Nathalie.Ward@noaa.gov* , External Affairs Coordinator. Telephone: 781-545-8026 X206. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council was established in March 2001 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. The Advisory Council's 21 members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus seven local, state and federal government agencies. Since its establishment, the Council has played a vital role in advising the Sanctuary and NOAP on critical issues and is currently focused on the sanctuary's new five-year Management Plan. The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary encompasses 842 square miles of ocean, stretching between Cape Ann and Cape Cod. Renowned for its scenic beauty and remarkable productivity, the sanctuary supports a rich diversity of marine life including 22 species of marine mammals, more than 30 species of seabirds, over 60 species of fishes, and hundreds of marine invertebrates and plants. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: July 7, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15779 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XJ11 U.S. Climate Change Science Program Draft Unified Synthesis Product Report: Global Climate Change in the United States AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comments. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to announce a 28-day public comment period for the draft report titled, U.S. Climate Change Science Program Unified Synthesis Product (USP). This draft report is being released solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After consideration of comments received on the draft report, a revised version along with the comments received will be published on the CCSP web site. DATES: Comments must be received by August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: The draft Unified Synthesis Product: is posted on the CCSP Web site at: *http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/default.php.* Detailed instructions for making comments on this draft report are also provided on the CCSP webpage. Comments must be prepared in accordance with these instructions and submitted to: *USP-comments@climatescience.gov* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anne Waple, Climate Change Science Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20006, Telephone:
(202)419-3463. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP was established by the President in 2002 to coordinate and integrate scientific research on global change and climate change sponsored by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The CCSP is charged with preparing information resources that promote climate-related discussions and decisions, including scientific synthesis and assessment analyses that support evaluation of important policy issues. Dated: July 14, 2008. William J. Brennan, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Acting Director, Climate Change Science Program. [FR Doc. E8-16386 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-S CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 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 the Application Instructions Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements form to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Ralph Morales at
(202)606-6829 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 Officer 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 agency'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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. Comments A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2008. This comment period ended June 28, 2008. No public comments were received from this notice. *Description:* The Corporation is seeking approval of the Application Instructions Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements. The application instructions will be used by potential applicants to apply for funding to provide training and technical assistance to Corporation grantees and subgrantees. Applications will be reviewed by the Corporation and providers selected through a rigorous review process. The Application Instructions for Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements provides the submission and compliance requirements, application requirements and selection criteria of potential applicants interested in providing training and technical assistance to Corporation grantees and subgrantees. The instructions also provide the Corporation reporting requirements of successful applicants. *Type of Review:* New Information Collection. *Agency:* Corporation for National and Community Service. *Title:* Application Instructions Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements. *OMB Number:* 3045-0105. *Agency Number:* None. *Affected Public:* First-time grantees or current grantees re-competing for funding. *Total Respondents:* 56. *Frequency:* One
(1)time. *Average Time per Response:* 11.75 hours. Estimated at 16.5 hours for first-time respondents; 7 hours for current providers. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 658 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* None. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* None. Dated: June 30, 2008. Gretchen Van der Veer, Director, Office of Leadership Development and Training. [FR Doc. E8-16334 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 08-54] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM,
(703)601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-54 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: July 2, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN17JY08.006 EN17JY08.007 EN17JY08.008 EN17JY08.009 [FR Doc. E8-15780 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) AGENCY: Department of Education, Department of the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget. ACTION: Notice of terms and conditions of purchase of loans under the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008; correction; extension of deadline. SUMMARY: On July 1, 2008, the Department of Education, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget published a notice of terms and conditions of purchase of loans under the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 in the **Federal Register** (Notice of Terms and Conditions). Appendix D to the Notice of Terms and Conditions contained several minor errors. This document corrects Appendix D. This document also extends the deadline, specified in Appendix B and Appendix C of the Notice of Terms and Conditions, for submission of a Notice of Intent to Participate under the Loan Purchase Commitment and Loan Participation Purchase programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristie Hansen, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street, NE., Room 113F1, Washington, DC 20202. *Telephone:*
(202)377-3309 or by *e-mail: Kristie.Hansen@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In the notice of terms and conditions of purchase of loans under the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, published July 1, 2008 (73 FR 37422), make the following correction: On pages 37449 and 37450, Appendix D is removed and replaced with Appendix D, attached. *Extension of Deadline:* The Notice of Terms and Conditions announced the terms and conditions that govern the Loan Purchase Commitment Program (Loan Purchase Program Terms and Conditions) and the Loan Participation Purchase Program (Loan Participation Purchase Program Terms and Conditions) (collectively, the “Terms and Conditions”) established by the Department of Education, the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. The Loan Purchase Program Terms and Conditions provided in Appendix B (73 FR 37432) that a “Lender may not sell Eligible Loans to the Department on which the first disbursement was made prior to the date on which the Department receives the Notice of Intent, unless the Department receives the Notice of Intent on or before a date fifteen calendar days after the terms of the Program are published in the **Federal Register** .” Similarly, the Loan Participation Purchase Program Terms and Conditions provided in Appendix C (73 FR 37447) that the “Eligible Lender may not sell Participation Interests to the Department relating to loans for which the first disbursement was made prior to the date on which the Department receives the Notice of Intent, unless the Department receives the Notice of Intent on or before a date fifteen calendar days after the terms of the program are published in the **Federal Register** .” Under these provisions, the Notice of Intent for both programs would have to be received by the Department on or before July 16, 2008 to ensure loans for which the first disbursement was made on or after May 1, 2008 were eligible for the programs. To provide lenders with additional time to submit the Notice of Intent for both programs, the Department, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget are extending that deadline until July 31, 2008. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: July 10, 2008. Sara Martinez Tucker, Under Secretary for Education. Dated: July 10, 2008. Taiya Smith, Executive Secretary and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Department of the Treasury. Dated: July 9, 2008. Steve McMillin, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget. BILLING CODE 4000-01-P EN17JY08.004 EN17JY08.005 [FR Doc. E8-16241 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-C DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-342] Application to Export Electric Energy; The Royal Bank of Canada AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of application. SUMMARY: The Royal Bank of Canada
(RBC)has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. DATES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-8008). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy
(DOE)pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On July 9, 2008, DOE received an application from RBC for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer. RBC has requested an electricity export authorization with a 5-year term. RBC does not own or control any electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets, nor does it have a franchised service area. The electric energy which RBC proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the United States. RBC will arrange for the delivery of exports to Canada over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, and Vermont Electric Transmission Co. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by RBC has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment, or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above. Comments on the RBC application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket No. EA-342. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Robin J. Bowen, McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, 600 13th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3096. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at *http://www.oe.energy.gov/permits_pending.htm* , or by e-mailing Odessa Hopkins at *Odessa.hopkins@hq.doe.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2008. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E8-16366 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. P-2197-084] Alcoa Power Generating Incorporated; Notice of Application for Temporary Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Type of Application:* Request for temporary variance of minimum flow release and reservoir drawdown limit. b. *Project No.:* 2197-084. c. *Date Filed:* July 8, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Alcoa Power Generating Incorporated. e. *Name of Project:* Yadkin. f. *Location:* On the Yadkin/Pee Dee River, in Montgomery, Stanley, Davidson, Rowan, and Davie Counties, North Carolina. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Marshall Olson, Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 293 NC 740 Highway, P.O. Box 576, Badin, NC 28009-0576,
(704)422-5622. i. *FERC Contact:* Thomas LoVullo,
(202)502-8900; e-mail: *thomas.lovullo@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:* August 11, 2008. Please include the project number (P-2197) on any comments or motions filed. 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. 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 electronic filings. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. k. *Description of Request:* Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. is requesting a temporary variance of the minimum flow release requirement under license article 33 for the Yadkin Project. Due to worsening drought conditions in the project area and the need to conserve water, Alcoa requests that it be allowed to reduce the weekly average discharge flow of 1,400 cubic feet per second
(cfs)to a weekly average of 1,000 cfs, effective as soon as possible. Additionally, Alcoa requests a temporary variance from the operating guides, at the Narrows reservoir, in order to balance outflows with the High Rock reservoir. Included with Alcoa's request were concurrences received from the Drought Management Team
(DMT)established as a result of the 2002 drought. On July 10, 2008, the Commission granted the licensee's requests, but reserved authority to require changes in project operation based upon comments received from this notice. l. *Location of the Application:* The filing 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, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://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/docsfiling/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail *ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov* , for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Any filing 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. E8-16293 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2210-176] Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application To Amend License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following 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:* 2210-176. c. *Date Filed:* June 17, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Appalachian Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project. f. *Location:* The project is located on the Roanoke River, in Bedford, Pittsylvania, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Elizabeth B. Parcell, Plant Coordinator I, Appalachian Power Company, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, Virginia 24022-2121
(703)985-2348. i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Jade Alvey, Telephone
(202)502-6849, and e-mail: *Jade.Alvey@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protest:* 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. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. k. *Description of Request:* Appalachian Power Company
(APC)is seeking Commission approval to grant permission to Jim Petrine to stabilize shoreline through the use of riprap, and to construct a single dock, along shoreline identified as an Impact Minimization Zone (IMZ), as defined in the project's shoreline management plan (SMP). The proposed dock would be single-family use and would be located at the terminus of Windward Pointe Drive, a new road serving The Winward at Point Cheli, a new development located northeast of Long Island Drive, in Franklin County, Virginia. The licensee is requesting a variance as required by the SMP for development within the IMZ. In accordance with the SMP, Jim Petrine has developed a plan to relocate woody debris in the activity area currently serving as fish habitat to an alternate location nearby and obtained concurrence on the plan from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 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 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. 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. E8-16290 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings July 10, 2008. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-212. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FSS negotiated rate agreements and amendments to eleven
(11)Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate agreements etc with Wisconsin Public Service Corp, effective 10/31/08. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0144. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP99-301-213. *Applicants:* ANR Pipeline Company. *Description:* ANR Pipeline Company submits one
(1)Rate Schedule FSS negotiated rate service agreement,
(8)eight Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate service agreements etc with UGI Utilities, Inc, effective 4/1/09 or 11/1/09. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP00-157-019. *Applicants:* Kern River Gas Transmission Company. *Description:* Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Thirteenth Revised Sheet 495, Eighth Revised Sheet 496 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 7/9/08. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0147. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* RP08-441-000. *Applicants:* West Texas Gas, Inc. *Description:* West Texas Gas, Inc. submits a report detailing its purchased gas cost reconciliation for 12-month period ending 4/30/08 pursuant to Section 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff and Article 1. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0146. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* CP05-119-005; CP05-121-004. *Applicants:* Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC. *Description:* Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits their Revised Pro Forms Sheet 6 et al, and informs that they estimate that it will place its pipeline facilities into service on or about 9/15/08. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0039. *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. E8-16306 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 July 9, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER98-3184-011; ER00-494-005. *Applicants:* TransAlta Energy Marketing; TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC. *Description:* TransAlta Entities submits updated market power analysis for the Northeast region, which demonstrates that the TransAlta Entities continue to be eligible to make wholesale sales of electric capacity & energy etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2156-015; ER96-719-022; ER97-2801-023. *Applicants:* Cordova Energy Company LLC; MidAmerican Energy Company; PacifiCorp. *Description:* Cordova Energy Company LLC et al. submits updated market power analysis. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0219. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-3502-008; ER02-1884-007; ER02-1884-008. *Applicants:* Berkshire Power Company, LLC; Waterside Power, LLC. *Description:* Berkshire Power Co et al. submits a Compliance Filing pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0152. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-2129-001; ER00-2508-003; ER00-1749-004; ER01-3035-007; ER04-944-004; ER03-382-005; ER06-1272-004; ER99-1801-009; ER02-1762-006; ER07-1300-001. *Applicants:* Orion Power Midwest, L.P.; Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Pwr Holdings; Reliant Energy New Jersey Holdings, LLC; Reliant Energy Seward, LLC; Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC; Reliant Energy Electric Solutions, LLC; Reliant Energy Power Supply, LLC; Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Reliant Energy Solutions East, LLC; Reliant Energy Solutions Northeast, LLC. *Description:* Reliant NE MBR Entities submits their triennial market power analysis for the Northeast Region and revisions to their market based rate tariffs. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0009. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-2738-008; ER99-1004-009; ER01-1721-006; ER00-2740-008; ER02-564-006; ER06-653-003. *Applicants:* Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC. *Description:* Entergy Nuclear Affiliates submits updated market power analysis to support the continued allowance of market-based rates. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0106. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-3614-008. *Applicants:* BP Energy Company. *Description:* BP Energy Co submits an updated market power analysis and proposed tariff revisions in compliance with Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0210. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1268-011; ER01-1269-010; ER01-1271-011; ER01-1266-010; ER01-1273-011; ER01-1277-010; ER02-1213-009. *Applicants:* Mirant Canal, LLC; Mirant Chalk Point, LLC; Mirant Kendall, LLC; Mirant Bowline, LLC; Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC; Mirant Potomac River, LLC; Mirant Energy Trading, LLC. *Description:* Mirant Canal, LLC et al. (Mirant Entities) submits their joint triennial market power filing pursuant to Order 697 under ER01-1268 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0112. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-3103-015. *Applicants:* Astoria Energy LLC. *Description:* Astoria Energy LLC submits the Combined Notice of Change in Status Under Order 652 and Compliance/Triennial Filing Under Order 697 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0217. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-973-005. *Applicants:* UBS AG. *Description:* UBS AG submits an application for determination of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0208. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-708-006. *Applicants:* Horsehead Corp. *Description:* Horsehead Corp submits an application for determination of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0207. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-734-003; ER07-981-001. *Applicants:* Barclays Bank PLC; Barclays Capital Energy Inc. *Description:* Barclays Bank PLC et al. submits an updated market power analysis and proposed tariff revisions in compliance with Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0209. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-925-019. *Applicants:* Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. *Description:* Petition of Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc requesting classification as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0154. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-454-005; ER06-805-002; ER07-528-003; ER06-642-004; ER05-118-006; ER05-131-006; ER06-804-001; ER06-1446-004; ER03-796-007; ER06-784-003. *Applicants:* Bear Swamp Power Company LLC; Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc.; Brookfield Energy Marketing U.S. LLC; Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC; Carr Street Generating Station, L.P.; Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; Hawks Nest Hydro LLC; Katahdin Paper Company LLC; Rumford Falls Hydro LLC. *Description:* Bear Swamp Power Co, LLC et al. submits an updated market power analysis proposed tariff revisions and request for confidential treatment. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0017. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-560-001. *Applicants:* Credit Suisse Energy LLC. *Description:* Credit Suisse Energy LLC submits a filing explaining why CSE qualifies as a Category 1 Seller of wholesale electricity in the Northeast region of the United States and in all other Regions specified by the Commission Appendix D etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-635-004; ER06-634-004; ER95-1007-023. *Applicants:* Edgecombe Genco, LLC; Spruance Genco, LLC; Logan Generating Company, LP. *Description:* Edgecomb Genco, LLC et al. submits updated market power analysis in compliance with the requirements of Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0110. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-759-004. *Applicants:* Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. *Description:* Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. submits updated market power analysis in compliance with the requirements of section 35.37 of the regulations of the FERC and the regional schedule set forth in Order 697 A for the Northeast region. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008; 07/1/08. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0213; 20080702-0214. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-764-002; ER06-1226-001. *Applicants:* Premcor Refining Group Inc.; Valero Power Marketing LLC. *Description:* The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. and Valero Power Marketing, LLC's joint application for Category 1 Seller Determinations, Filing of Triennial Market-Based Rate Update etc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-864-012; ER07-1356-004; ER07-1112-003; ER07-1113-003; ER07-1115-003; ER07-1116-003; ER07-1117-003; ER07-1358-004; ER07-1118-003; ER07-1119-003; ER07-1120-003; ER07-1122-003; ER06-1543-009; ER00-2885-019; ER01-2765-018; ER08-148-003; ER05-1232-011; ER02-1582-016; ER02-2102-018; ER03-1283-013. *Applicants:* Bear Energy LP; BE Alabama LLC; BE Allegheny LLC; BE CA LLC; BE Colquitt LLC; BE Ironwood LLC; BE Satilla LLC; BE Ironwood LLC; BE KJ LLC; BE Louisiana LLC; BE Rayle LLC; BE Red Oak LLC; BE Walton LLC; Brush Cogeneration Partners; Cedar Brakes I, L.L.C.; Cedar Brakes II, LLC; Central Power & Lime Inc; J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation; Mohawk River Funding IV, L.L.C.; Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C.; Vineland Energy LLC *Description:* Bear Energy, LP et al. submits their Triennial Report. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0188. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1280-002; ER00-2181-005; ER02-556-009. *Applicants:* Hess Corporation; Hess Energy, Inc.; Select Energy New York, Inc. *Description:* Hess Corp et al. submits an Updated Market Power Analysis. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1402-001; ER06-1403-001. *Applicants:* Westmoreland Partners (ROVA I); Westmoreland Partners (ROVA II). *Description:* Westmoreland Partners submits a request for classification as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-74-001. *Applicants:* Caithness Long Island, LLC. *Description:* Caithness Long Island, LLC submits a notice of their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-189-005; ER07-190-005; ER07-191-005; ER07-192-003. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.; Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.; Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.; Duke Energy Shared Service, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy MBR Companies submits an updated market power analysis focusing on the generation owned and controlled by Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0192. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-911-002; ER98-2782-015. *Applicants:* RPL Holdings, Inc.; AG Energy L.P. *Description:* RPL Holdings, Inc et al. submits a filing demonstrating their status as a Category 1 seller pursuant to Order 697 and 697-A under ER07-911 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0160. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1-002. *Applicants:* Yuma Power Limited Liability Company. *Description:* Yuma Power Limited Liability Co submits a revised market-based rate tariff sheets in compliance with Order 697 and 697-A under ER08-1. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-200-002; ER06-1291-002; ER07-565-001; ER07-566-001; ER07-412-002. *Applicants:* Waterbury Generation, LLC; MT. Tom Generating Company LLC; FirstLight Hydro Generating Company; FirstLight Power Resources Management, LLC; 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:* ER08-201-003; ER08-202-003. *Applicants:* Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corporation; James River Cogeneration Company. *Description:* Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp et al. submits an updated market power analysis in compliance with Order 697 and 697-A under ER08-201 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0205. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1213-000. *Applicants:* Westmoreland Partners. *Description:* Westmoreland Partners request the withdrawal and deletion from its market-based rate tariff of two long-term, market-based Power Purchase Agreements with Virginia Electric and Power Company etc under ER08-1213. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0071. *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. E8-16307 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 2 July 10, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1204-000. *Applicants:* Vermont Transco LLC. *Description:* Vermont Transco LLC submits an “updated Exhibit A for the 1991 Transmission Agreement” a rate schedule commonly referred to as the VTA and designated as Rate Schedule 1, effective 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0136. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1205-000. *Applicants:* New England Power Pool. *Description:* The New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits signature pages of the New England Power Pool Agreement dated as of 9/1/71, as amended executed by Correct Building Product LLC *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0137. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1206-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0138. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1207-000. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co submits revised tariff sheets to the open access transmission tariff of PJM Interconnection, LLC to implement transmission rate incentives. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1209-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc and New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits related materials addressing tariff revisions related to resources needed for reliability in the Forward Capacity Market. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0156. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1207-001. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company. *Description:* Virginia Electric and Power Co submits an errata to its 7/1/08 request for Transmission Investment Incentive under ER08-1207. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0204. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 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 under ER08-1208. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1210-000. *Applicants:* Arizona Public Service Company. *Description:* ANPP Switchyard Participants submits a partially executed Amended and Restated ANPP Hassayampa Switchyard Interconnection Agreement entered into between the ANPP Switchyard Participants and the Palo Verde *et al.* under ER08-1210. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0209. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1211-000. *Applicants:* Green Energy Partners LLC. *Description:* Green Energy Partners, LLC submits a Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authorization under ER08-1211. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0205. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1212-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised pages to its Open Access Transmission Tariff under ER08-1212. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1214-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement with Ontonagon County Rural Electrification Association, to be effective 9/1/08 under ER08-1214. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0072. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1215-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement with the City of Crystal Falls Michigan, effective 9/1/08 under ER08-1215. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0073. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1216-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain tariff revisions to its Formula Rate Wholesale Sales Tariff, to be effective 9/1/08 under ER08-1216. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1217-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement with Alger Delta Cooperative Electric Association, to be effective 9/1/08 under ER08-1217. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1218-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits certain tariff revisions to the Restated Power Service Agreement between Wisconsin Electric and Wisconsin Public Power, Inc under ER08-1218. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1219-000. *Applicants:* CL Power Sales Ten, L.L.C. *Description:* CL Power Sales Ten, L.L.C. submits a Notice of Cancellation under ER08-1219. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0207. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1220-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits a fully executed Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement with Illinois Municipal Electric Agency under ER08-1220. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0208. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1221-000; ER08-61-002. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc et al. submits revised tariff sheets and supporting testimony of Marc Montalvo, Manager of Market Development for the ISO under ER08-1221. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1222-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England Inc *et al* . submits revised tariff sheets concerning the methodology for determining external node prices in the day-ahead energy market under ER08-1222 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0296. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1223-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits a notice of cancellation for a Wholesale Market Participant Agreement under ER08-1223. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0302. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1224-000. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* ISO New England, Inc *et al.* submits 1st Revised Sheet 7011B *et al* . to FERC Electric Tariff 3 relating to retirement of existing capacity resources etc. and supporting testimony of David LaPlante under ER08-1224. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0301. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1225-000. *Applicants:* Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority under ER07-1225. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0297. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1226-000. *Applicants:* Arlington Wind Power Project LLC. *Description:* Petition of Arlington Wind Power Project LLC for Order Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff for Filing and Granting Waivers and Blanket Approvals under ER07-1226. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0298. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1227-000. *Applicants:* Rail Splitter Wind Farm, LLC. *Description:* Petition of Rail Splitter Wind Farm, LLC for Order Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff for filing and granting Waivers and Blanket Approvals, effective 9/1/08 under ER08-1227. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0299. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1228-000. *Applicants:* Wheat Field Wind Power Project LLC. *Description:* Petition of Wheat Field Wind Power Project LLC for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority under ER07-1228. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0303. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1229-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits an executed Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Atlantic Wind, LLC under ER08-1229. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0300. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1230-000. *Applicants:* Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC. *Description:* Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC submits the Notice of Succession and Motion for Determination of Category 1 Seller Status under ER08-1230 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0038. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1231-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits the unexecuted Interconnection Facilities Agreement between the City of Riverside and SCE under ER08-1231. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0037. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1233-000. *Applicants:* Public Service Electric and Gas Company. *Description:* Public Service Electric and Gas Co submits revised tariff sheets to the Open access transmission tariff under ER08-1233. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0034. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1234-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* AEP Texas Central Company submits executed generation interconnection agreement dated 6/18/08 between AEP Texas Gas Central and two electric generating companies, Nueces Bay WLE, LP and Barney Davis etc. under ER08-1234. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080709-0229. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1235-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Duquesne Light Company and Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc seeks FERC's acceptance and approval for the reliable integration of Duquesne's transmission facilities etc. under ER08-1235. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0132. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1236-000; ER00-3751-005; ER00-2117-005; ER00-2118-005; ER93-493-017; ER07-400-001. *Applicants:* ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC; ANP Blackstone Energy Company, LLC; Milford Power Limited Partnership; ANP Funding I, LLC; IPA Trading, LLC. *Description:* IPA Entities submits an updated market power analysis supporting their continued authorization to sell power at market based rates under ER08-1236 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1238-000; ER99-1293-010. *Applicants:* Monmouth Energy, Inc. *Description:* Monmouth Energy, Inc. submits updated market power analysis and an errata to this filing on 07/08/08. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008; 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080709-0239; 20080709-0238. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1239-000. *Applicants:* Pocono Energy Services, LLC. *Description:* Pocono Energy Services, LLC submits a notice of cancellation. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080709-0232. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings: *Docket Numbers:* FC08-10-000. *Applicants:* Pubnico Point, L.P. *Description:* Self Certification Notice of Foreign Utility Company Status of Pubnico Point, L.P. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-5200. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* FC08-11-000. *Applicants:* Mount Copper, L.P. *Description:* Self Certification Notice of Foreign Utility Company Status of Mount Copper, L.P. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-5202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings: *Docket Numbers:* OA08-24-001. *Applicants:* Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.—Yadkin. *Description:* Yadkin Division of Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. submits the blacklined Open Access Transmission Tariff sheets containing revised effective dated under OA08-24. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: *Docket Numbers:* PH08-31-000 *Applicants:* Energy West Incorporated *Description:* FERC 65-B Notification of Energy West Resources, Inc's. change in exempt holding company status under PH08-31, et. al. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-5231. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 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. E8-16308 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 July 10, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC08-107-000. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Corporation, Catamount Energy Corp, Ryegate Associates, Rumford Cogeneration Co LP. *Description:* Duke Energy Corp, Catamount Energy Corp, Ryegate Associates et al submits an application requesting authorization for the indirect acquisition of securities at Catamount, Ryegate and Rumford under EC08-107. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-108-000. *Applicants:* Forward Energy LLC, EFS Forward, LLC, Wachovia Investment Holdings, LLC. *Description:* Forward Energy LLC *et al.* submits an application for authorization re the sale and transfer of a portion of the Class A membership interests etc. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* EC08-110-000. *Applicants:* Baja California Power, Inc., AIG Highstar Capital ll Ocean Star The N, AIG Highstar Capital ll Prism Fund Ocean, AIG Investor Ocean Star The Netherlands, Uluru Finance Limited, GMR Infrastructure (Malta) Limited. *Description:* Baja California Power, Inc submits an application for order authorizing Indirect Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action under EC08-110. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER94-1061-028. *Applicants:* Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation. *Description:* Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation requests that FERC accept the request for Category Seller determination as timely filed, or alternatively find that good cause exists to grant waiver under ER94-1061. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0140. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-324-011; ER97-3834-018. *Applicants:* Detroit Edison Company; DTE Energy Trading, Inc. *Description:* The Detroit Edison Company et al submits the revised Market-Based Rate Tariffs under ER97-324 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080709-0233. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-3561-006; ER98-3771-002; ER00-2839-006; ER00-1737-012; ER04-834-005; ER96-2869-014; ER02-1342-004; ER97-30-007; ER99-1432-010; ER99-1695-012; ER01-2763-002; ER00-3621-010; ER05-34-006; ER01-468-009; ER05-35-006; ER05-36-006; ER05-37-006; ER04-318-005; ER04-249-006; ER02-23-012; ER07-1306-005. *Applicants:* Virginia Electric and Power Company; State Line Energy, L.L.C.; Kincaid Generation, L.L.C.; Elwood Energy, LLC; Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Dominion Energy New England, Inc.; Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.; Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC; Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC; Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc.; Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Dominion Retail, Inc.; Fairless Energy, LLC; NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. *Description:* Notice of Change in Status Under Order No. 697-A of Dominion Resources Services, Inc. under ER97-3561, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-5128. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2061-002. *Applicants:* Enjet, Inc. *Description:* Enjet, Inc submits an updated market power analysis and rate schedule revisions under ER99-2061. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080709-0234. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-3502-008; ER02-1884-007; ER02-1884-008. *Applicants:* Berkshire Power Company, LLC; Waterside Power, LLC. *Description:* Errata to Order No. 697 Compliance Filing of June 30, 2007 of Berkshire Power Company, LLC, *et al.* and Withdrawal of Duplicative Revised Tariff Sheets of Waterside Power, LLC under ER99-3502, *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-5245. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-895-009. *Applicants:* Onondago Cogeneration Limited Partnership. *Description:* Onondaga Cogeneration Limited Partnership request that FERC accept the attached request for Category 1 Seller determination ( Request) as timely filed, or alternatively find that good cause exist to grant waiver. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0003. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-174-004. *Applicants:* Lighthouse Energy Trading Company, Inc. *Description:* Lighthouse Energy Trading Co, Inc requests that the FERC accept their request for Category 1 Seller determination, or alternatively find that good cause exist to grant waiver pursuant to Order 697. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0010. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-1398-004; ER08-1100-002; ER08-1099-002; ER05-1249-007. *Applicants:* KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC; National Grid-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC; National Grid-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC; Granite State Electric Co. *Description:* Compliance filing of National Grid USA to comply with directives in FERC's Order. *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0295. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER02-2559-008; ER02-669-008; ER00-2391-009; ER00-3068-008; ER98-3511-012; ER02-1903-009; ER99-2917-010; ER98-3566-015; ER02-1838-008; ER98-3563-012; ER98-3564-013; ER02-2120-006; ER05-714-003; ER03-623-008; ER04-290-004; ER01-1710-011; ER04-187-006; ER05-236-006; ER02-2166-008; ER01-2139-012; ER03-1375-005. *Applicants:* Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC; Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC; Doswell Limited Partnership; FPL Energy Cape, LLC; FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC; FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P.; FPL Energy MH 50, LP; FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC; FPL Energy Wyman, LLC; FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC; FPLE Rhode Island State Energy, L.P.; Gexa Energy LLC; Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC; Meyersdale Windpower, LLC; Mill Run Windpower, LLC; North Jersey Energy Associates, L.P.; Northeast Energy Associates, LP; Pennsylvania Windfarms, Inc.; Somerset Windpower, LLC; Waymart Wind Farm L.P. *Description:* The FPLE Companies submit the Triennial Updated Market Power Analysis under ER02-2559 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0013. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-9-012; ER98-2157-013. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Revised Notice of Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-5077. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-9-014; ER06-1313-004; ER98-2157-015. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc., Kansas Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Refund Report of Westar Energy, Inc., *et al* . *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-5148. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-114-005; ER04-183-004. *Applicants:* Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc.; Great Bay Hydro Corporation. *Description:* Great Bay Power Marketing, Inc and Great Bay Hydro Corp's application for qualification as Category 1 Sellers and revised tariff sheets pursuant to Orders 697 and 697-A under ER03-114 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0011. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-774-009. *Applicants:* Eagle Energy Partners I, L.P. *Description:* Lehman Brothers Commodity Services, Inc and Eagle Energy Partners I, LP submits their petition requesting classification as a Category 1 Seller pursuant to Order 697 and market-based rate compliance filings under ER05-1420 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0001. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER03-1182-006; ER04-698-006; ER99-415-016. *Applicants:* Tyr Energy, LLC; Tor Power, LLC; Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC. *Description:* Tyr Energy LLC *et al* . requests that FERC accept the request for Category 1 Seller determination as timely filed, or alternatively find that good cause exists to grant waiver. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0139. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1288-001; ER04-1013-003. *Applicants:* Wheelabrator North Andover Inc., Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P. *Description:* Wheelabrator North Andover Inc *et al* . submits updated market analysis in compliance filing etc under ER05-1288 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 06/27/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 18, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1512-001. *Applicants:* Verso Androscoggin LLC. *Description:* Verso Androscoggin LLC request that the FERC accept the attached request for Category 1 Seller determination (Request) as timely filed, or alternatively find that good cause exists to grant waiver. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0002. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-758-005. *Applicants:* Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership. *Description:* Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership submits a supplement to its updated market power analysis in compliance with Order 697-A. *Filed Date:* 06/30/08; 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0215; 20080702-0216. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 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 under ER07-466. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-0119. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1040-001; ER06-169-002; ER08-1108-001. *Applicants:* Hopewell Cogeneration Ltd Partnership, Syracuse Energy Corporation, SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc. *Description:* Hopewell Cogeneration Limited Partnership *et al* . submits an updated market power analysis supporting their continued authorization to sell power at market-based rates and filed workpapers on 7/1/08. *Filed Date:* 06/30/2008; 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0042; 20080708-0043. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 21, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1136-002. *Applicants:* Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC. *Description:* Order No. 697 Compliance Filing of Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080630-5145. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1136-003; ER08-561-001. *Applicants:* Benton County Wind Farm LLC, Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC. *Description:* Notice of Change of Status of Camp Grove Wind Farm LLC, *et al.* in ER07-1136, *et al.* Filed Date: 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080702-5076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1174-003; OA07-74-003. *Applicants:* MATL LLP. *Description:* MATL LLP submits a compliance filing re OATT Attachments C and K under ER07-1174 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0044. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-371-002. *Applicants:* Cooperative Energy Incorporated. *Description:* Cooperative Energy Inc submits FERC Rate Schedule 1, Original Sheet which correctly reflects the effective date of 6/22/08 re notification of excess sales under ER08-371. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-541-002. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp submits amendment to the Revised Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement with the City of Garrett under ER08-541. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0148. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-569-002. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised tariff sheets for Article II.C of Attachment Q-PJM Credit Policy of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1 etc under ER08-569 *et al.* *Filed Date:* 07/03/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 24, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-808-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits the Alternate Pro Forma Sheet 30 in compliance with FERC's 6/6/08 Order under ER08-808. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0100. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-951-001. *Applicants:* PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC. *Description:* PSEG Energy Resources and Trade, LLC submits an amendment to its 5/13/08 filing of a new rate schedule under ER08-951. *Filed Date:* 07/08/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080710-0099. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-964-001. *Applicants:* Outback Power Marketing, Inc. *Description:* Outback Power Marketing, Inc submits an amendment to its 5/16/08 Notice of Cancellation under ER08-964. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-996-001. *Applicants:* CBA Endeavors, LLC. *Description:* CBA Endeavors, LLC submits the amendment to 5/20/08 Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority under ER08-996. *Filed Date:* 07/07/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0035. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 28, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1193-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits the revisions to the Generator Special Facilities Agreement and the Generator Interconnection Agreement between PG&E Geysers Power Company, LLC under ER08-1193. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080708-0274. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1195-000. *Applicants:* Red Hills Wind Project LLC. *Description:* Application for Red Hills Wind Project, LLC for order accepting market-based rate tariff, granting authorizations and blanket authority, and waiving certain requirements under ER08-1195. *Filed Date:* 07/02/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080707-0004. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1200-000. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Co submits Notices of Cancellation of agreements with Western Area Power Administration. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1201-000. *Applicants:* Southwestern Electric Power Company. *Description:* Southwestern Electric Power Co submits amendments to an agreement with Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0141. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1202-000. *Applicants:* Huntrise Energy Fund LLC. *Description:* Huntrise Energy Fund LLC Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0151. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-1203-000. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits an amendment to the Participation Load Agreement with the California Department of Water Resources. *Filed Date:* 07/01/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080703-0142. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 22, 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. E8-16309 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI08-12-000] Crane & Company; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Declaration of Intention. b. *Docket No.:* DI08-12-000. c. *Date Filed:* June 30, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Crane & Company. e. *Name of Project:* Byron Weston Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The proposed Byron Weston Hydroelectric Project will be located on the East Branch Housatonic River, in Dalton, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. g. *Filed Pursuant To:* Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b). h. *Applicant Contact:* Chad W. Cox, P.E., CZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., One Edgewater Drive, Norwood, MA 02446; *telephone:*
(781)278-5787; Fax:
(781)278-5701; *e-mail: http://www.chad.cox@gza.com* . i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton,
(202)502-8768, or e-mail address: *henry.ecton@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:* 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. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. 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. Please include the docket number (DI08-12-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed run-of-river Byron Weston Hydropower Project will include:
(1)An existing 200-foot-long, 23-foot-high stone-and-masonry-gravity dam,
(2)a 6-foot-diameter penstock,
(3)a 176-kW turbine/generator, located within the Byron Weston No. 2 Mill; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. Power generated will be used on-site. When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project:
(1)Would be located on a navigable waterway;
(2)would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States;
(3)would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4)if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation. l. *Locations of the Application:* Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3372, or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, AND/OR “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket 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. 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16300 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI08-9-000] Gary E. Hall; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Declaration of Intention. b. *Docket No:* DI08-9-000. c. *Date Filed:* June 17, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Gary E. Hall. e. *Name of Project:* Potter Creek Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The proposed Potter Creek Hydroelectric Project will be located on Potter Creek, near Olney, in Flathead County, Montana, affecting T. 32 N, R. 24 W, sec. 23, Montana Meridian. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b). h. *Applicant Contact:* Gary E. Hall, P.O. Box 133, Olney, Montana 59927; telephone:
(406)881-2345; e-mail: *www.garius@centurytel.net.* i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton,
(202)502-8768, or e-mail address: *henry.ecton@ferc.gov.* j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:* 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. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. 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. Please include the docket number (DI08-9-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed Potter Creek Hydropower Project will include:
(1)An existing 3-foot-high, 50-foot-long dam impounding a .07-acre-foot reservoir;
(2)A proposed 100-foot-long, 4-inch-diameter plastic penstock;
(3)A proposed powerhouse containing a 50-Watt generator, directing power into a battery; and
(4)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project will not be connected to an interstate grid. The project will occupy federal lands. When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project:
(1)Would be located on a navigable waterway;
(2)would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States;
(3)would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4)if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation. l. *Locations of the Application:* Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3372, or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, AND/OR “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket 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. 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16299 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI08-11-000] HPML LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Declaration of Intention. b. *Docket No.:* DI08-11-000. c. *Date Filed:* June 23, 2008. d. *Applicant:* HPML LLC. e. *Name of Project:* Delia Creek Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The proposed Delia Creek Hydroelectric Project will be located on Delia Creek, near the towns of Palmer and Wasilla, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska, affecting T. 20 N, R. 1 E, sec. 36, Seward Meridian. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b). h. *Applicant Contact:* Jill Reese, P.O. Box 91187, Anchorage, AK 99509; *telephone:*
(907)232-9648; *Fax:*
(907)745-6004; *e-mail:* *www.jilreese@gmail.com* . i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton,
(202)502-8768, or *e-mail address: henry.ecton@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:* 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. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. 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. Please include the docket number (DI08-11-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed Delia Creek Hydropower Project will include:
(1)A proposed 3-foot-high, 12-foot-wide diversion structure;
(2)a buried 10-inch-deep desander box, directing water into a 2600-foot-long HDPE penstock;
(3)a 15-foot-long by 15-foot-wide powerhouse containing a 50-kW turbine and generator;
(4)a tailrace emptying into the Little Susitna River; and
(5)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project will not be connected to an interstate grid, and will not occupy any tribal or federal lands. When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project:
(1)Would be located on a navigable waterway;
(2)would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States;
(3)would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4)if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation. l. *Locations of the Application:* Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3372, or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, AND/OR “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket 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. 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16301 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI08-10-000] John Werner; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene July 10, 2008. Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Declaration of Intention. b. *Docket No.:* DI08-10-000. c. *Date Filed:* June 22, 2008. d. *Applicant:* John Werner. e. *Name of Project:* Jordan Mill Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* The proposed Jordan Mill Hydroelectric Project will be located on the Royal River, near the town of New Gloucester, in Cumberland County, Maine. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b). h. *Applicant Contact:* John Werner, 17 Sawyer Road, New Gloucester, Maine 04260; *telephone:*
(207)926-5055; *e-mail: www.cwerner1@maine.rr.com* . i. *FERC Contact:* Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Henry Ecton,
(202)502-8768, or *e-mail address: henry.ecton@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:* 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. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. 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. Please include the docket number (DI08-10-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed. k. *Description of Project:* The proposed Jordan Mill Hydropower Project will include:
(1)An existing 10-foot-high, 25-foot-long concrete-and-cut-stone gravity dam impounding a 38.25-acre-foot reservoir;
(2)a proposed 450-foot-long, 12-inch-diameter plastic penstock;
(3)a proposed 8-foot-wide by 12-foot-long powerhouse containing a 10-kW generator;
(4)a 390-foot-long transmission line; and
(5)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project will not be connected to an interstate grid, and will not occupy any tribal or federal lands. Power generated will be used on-site. When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project:
(1)Would be located on a navigable waterway;
(2)would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States;
(3)would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4)if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation. l. *Locations of the Application:* Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Web at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at
(866)208-3372, or TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene* —Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. *Filing and Service of Responsive Documents* —Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTESTS”, AND/OR “MOTIONS TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Docket 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. 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. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16302 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL08-75-000] PacifiCorp; Notice of Filing July 10, 2008. Take notice that on July 3, 2008, PacifiCorp tendered for filing a Petition for Declaratory Order for Incentive Rate Treatment approving specific incentive rate treatments for PacifiCorp's Energy Gateway Transmission Expansion Project. 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 24, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16298 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER08-1125-000] Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization July 10, 2008. This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 1, 2008. 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-referenced proceeding 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. E8-16297 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13221-000] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 10, 2008. On May 8, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Mokelumne Pumped Storage Project to be located in Amador and Calaveras Counties, California on private and federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The proposed project would consist of one of the following three possible designs: (1)(i) Use of the existing Lower Bear River Reservoir, with a surface area of 746 acres, storage capacity of 49,079 acre feet, and normal water surface elevation of 5,822 feet, as the upper reservoir with the possibility of a dam raise to increase capacity;
(ii)a 16,000 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace, (2)(i) use of the existing Upper Bear River Reservoir, with a surface area of 320 acres, storage capacity of 6,756 acre feet, and a normal water surface elevation of 5,876 feet, as the upper reservoir with the possibility of a dam raise to increase capacity;
(ii)a 20,000 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace, (3)(i) A newly constructed dam in the Cole Creek area about 150 feet high and 700 feet long;
(ii)a reservoir with a surface elevation of 6,139 feet and capacity of 12,856 acre feet;
(iii)an 11,700 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace;
(4)the existing Salt Springs Reservoir, with a surface area of 960 acres, storage capacity of 141,817 acre feet, and a normal water surface elevation of 3,959 feet, would act as the lower reservoir for the proposed plans;
(5)a powerhouse with a total installed capacity from 380-1140 MW;
(6)a transmission line about 3,000 feet long and of 230 or 500 kV and;
(7)appurtenant facilities. The annual electrical production would be between 523 and 742 GWh. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Randal S. Livingston 245 Market Street, N11E-1137, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)973-6950. *FERC Contact:* Steven Sachs,
(202)502-8666. 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 Web site 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 the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.* Enter the docket number (P-13221) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16291 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13234-000] City and Borough of Sitka; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 10, 2008. On June 3, 2008, The City and Borough of Sitka filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Takatz Lake Project to be located on Takatz Lake in the Borough of Sitka, Alaska. The project would occupy federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The proposed project would consist of:
(1)A 200 foot high concrete arch dam;
(2)a reservoir with an elevation of 1,040 feet mean sea level and a capacity of 82,400 acre feet;
(3)a 2,800 foot long, unlined power tunnel fed by a lake tap and draining into a 1,000 foot long steel lined penstock;
(4)a powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 27.7 MW;
(5)a 26 mile long, 69 kv transmission line and;
(6)appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 106.9 GWh. *Applicant Contact:* James E. Dinley, 100 Lincoln Street, Sitka, AK 99835, 907-747-1808. *FERC Contact:* Steven Sachs, 202-502-8666. 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 Web site 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 the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp* . Enter the docket number (P-13234) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16292 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13214-000] Lock 12 Hydro Partners; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 10, 2008. On April 28, 2008, Lock 12 Hydro Partners filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Kentucky Lock and Dam 12 Project to be located at river mile 220.9 on the Kentucky River at Lock and Dam 12 in Estill County, Kentucky. Existing facilities are owned by the Kentucky River Authority. The proposed project would utilize the existing Lock and Dam 12 owned by the Kentucky River Authority and would consist of:
(1)A powerhouse containing 4 turbine generator units producing a total installed capacity of 2.7 MW;
(2)a 1,000 foot transmission line; and
(3)appurtenant facilities. The annual production would be 11 GWh which would be sold to a local utility. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. David Brown Kinloch, 414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, KY 40204,
(502)589-0975. *FERC Contact:* Steven Sachs,
(202)502-8666. *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 Web site 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 the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.* Enter the docket number (P-13214) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16295 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13213-000] Lock 14 Hydro Partners; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 10, 2008. On April 28, 2008, Lock 14 Hydro Partners filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Kentucky Lock and Dam 14 Project to be located at river mile 249 on the Kentucky River at Lock and Dam 14 in Lee County, Kentucky. Existing facilities are owned by the Kentucky River Authority. The proposed project would utilize the existing Lock and Dam 14 owned by the Kentucky River Authority and would consist of:
(1)A powerhouse containing 4 turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 2.7 MW;
(2)a 2,000 foot transmission line; and;
(3)appurtenant facilities. The annual production would be 11 GWh which would be sold to a local utility. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. David Brown Kinloch, 414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, KY 40204,
(502)589-0975. *FERC Contact:* Steven Sachs,
(202)502-8666. 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 Web site 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 the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.* Enter the docket number (P-13213) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16296 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13220-000] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications July 10, 2008. On May 7, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Kings River Pumped Storage Project to be located in Fresno County, California on private and federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The proposed project would consist of one of the following two possible designs:
(i)A dam in the Lost Canyon area 200 ft high and 700 ft long;
(ii)a reservoir with a surface elevation of 7,720 ft and an estimated storage capacity of 15,695 acre-feet,
(iii)an 8,000 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace;
(i)A dam in the Lower Short Hair Creek area with a height of 175 ft high and length of 1,700 ft;
(ii)a reservoir with full pool elevation of 8,245 ft and storage capacity of 16,290 acre-feet;
(iii)a 14,000 foot long power tunnel including intake structure, penstock, and tailrace;
(3)the existing Wishon reservoir, with a surface area of 1,025 acres, storage capacity of 128,639, and a normal water surface elevation of 6,550 feet, would act as the lower reservoir for either proposed plan;
(4)a powerhouse with a total installed capacity from 380-1140 MW;
(5)a transmission line between 2,000 and 5,000 feet long and of 230 or 500 kV and;
(6)appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual production between 304 and 912 GWh. *Applicant Contact:* Mr. Randal S. Livingston, 245 Market Street, N11E-1137, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)973-6950. *FERC Contact:* Steven Sachs,
(202)502-8666. *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 Web site 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 the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.* Enter the docket number (P-13220) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16294 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD08-5-000] Compliance Workshop; Notice of Comment Period for Workshop on Regulatory Compliance July 10, 2008. As announced at the Workshop on Regulatory Compliance held July 8, 2008, the Commission is providing the opportunity for written comments to be filed in this proceeding until July 22, 2008. The Commission encourages electronic submission 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 comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16303 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0497; FRL-8694-3] Adequacy Status of the Submitted 2008 and 2009 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes for New Jersey AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Adequacy. SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for NO <sup>X</sup> and VOC in the submitted reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration state implementation plans for the New Jersey portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) requires that the EPA conduct a public process and make an affirmative decision on the adequacy of budgets before they can be used by metropolitan planning organizations in conformity determinations. As a result of our finding, the metropolitan planning organizations in New Jersey (the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization) must use the new 2008 and 2009 8-hour ozone budgets for future transportation conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective August 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Laurita, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,
(212)637-3895, *laurita.matthew@epa.gov* . The finding and the response to comments will be available at EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2007, New Jersey submitted reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration state implementation plans to EPA for both the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (New York), and Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (Philadelphia), 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The purpose of New Jersey's submittal was to demonstrate New Jersey's progress toward attaining the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. New Jersey's submittal included motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets”) for 2008 and 2009 for use by the State's metropolitan planning organizations in making transportation conformity determinations. On March 19, 2008, the availability of these budgets was posted on EPA's Web site for the purpose of soliciting public comments. The comment period closed on April 18, 2008, and EPA received no comments. Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter to New Jersey on June 9, 2008. The findings letter states that the 2008 motor vehicle emissions budgets in New Jersey's SIPs for both the New York and Philadelphia 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are adequate because they are consistent with the required rate of progress plan. With regard to the 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets, the findings letter states that these budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes because they provide for continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These budgets serve to strengthen the SIP through continued progress towards attainment and ensure that motor vehicle emissions remain consistent with the emissions levels provided for in the SIP. New Jersey submitted the budgets on October 29, 2007, as part of the reasonable further progress plans and 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations for the New York and Philadelphia 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA's finding will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.* Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in 40 CFR 93.118(f). We have followed this rule in making our adequacy determination. The motor vehicle emissions budgets being found adequate today are listed in Table 1. Table 1.—8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for New Jersey [Tons per day] Metropolitan Planning Organization 2008 NO <sup>x</sup> VOC 2009 NO <sup>x</sup> VOC North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (excluding Ocean County) 143.60 85.38 133.39 79.00 North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (Ocean County only) 8.69 6.93 12.65 6.45 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 69.67 27.75 63.66 25.98 South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization 32.93 14.14 29.64 13.04 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q. Dated: July 8, 2008. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E8-16390 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8694-4] Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final action identifying water quality limited segments and associated pollutants in Texas to be listed pursuant to Clean Water Act
(CWA)Section 303(d), and request for public comment. Section 303(d) requires that states submit and EPA approve or disapprove lists of waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared. On July 9, 2008, EPA partially approved, and partially disapproved, Texas' 2008 303(d) submission. Specifically, EPA approved Texas' listing of 836 water body-pollutant combinations, and associated priority rankings. EPA disapproved Texas' decision not to list one
(1)water body-pollutant combination. EPA identified this additional water body pollutant-combination along with priority ranking for inclusion on the 2008 Section 303(d) List. EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its final decision to add one water body pollutant-combination to Texas' 2008 Section 303(d) List, as required by EPA's Public Participation regulations (40 CFR Part 25). EPA will consider public comments and if necessary amend its final action on the additional water body pollutant-combination identified for inclusion on Texas' Final 2008 Section 303(d) List. DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments on the decisions should be sent to Diane Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone
(214)665-2145, facsimile
(214)665-7373, or e-mail: *smith.diane@epa.gov* . Oral comments will not be considered. Copies of the documents which explain the rationale for EPA's decision and a list of the water quality limited segment for which EPA disapproved Texas' decision not to list can be obtained at EPA Region 6's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/tmdl/index.htm* , or by writing or calling Ms. Smith at the above address. Underlying documents from the administrative record for these decisions are available for public inspection at the above address. Please contact Ms. Smith to schedule an inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Smith at
(214)665-2145. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify those waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are required to establish TMDLs according to a priority ranking. EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7). Consistent with EPA's regulations, Texas submitted to EPA its listing decisions under Section 303(d) on April 1, 2008. On July 9, 2008, EPA approved Texas' listing of 836 water body-pollutant combinations and associated priority rankings. EPA disapproved Texas' decision not to list one
(1)water body-pollutant combination. EPA identified this additional water body pollutant-combination along with priority ranking for inclusion on the 2008 Section 303(d) List. EPA solicits public comment on its identification of one
(1)additional water body-pollutant combination for inclusion on Texas' 2008 Section 303(d) List. Dated: July 10, 2008. Miguel I. Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6. [FR Doc. E8-16387 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8693-8] Amendment to the Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice amends the “Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes” published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 157190, March 29, 2006). The guidelines describe the formula necessary for EPA to allot Clean Water Act
(CWA)section 106 water pollution control program grant funds that have been targeted in EPA's appropriation process to support enhanced monitoring efforts by states, interstate agencies, and tribes. These guidelines describe the specific activities that states, interstate agencies, and tribes must carry out under the monitoring initiative in order to receive the funds. These activities will improve state and tribal capacity to monitor and report on water quality, and include two components: Implementation of comprehensive monitoring strategies including building capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys of water condition, and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. This amendment retains the allotment formula set out in the March 29, 2006, guidelines, and adds a performance-based standard for incorporating use of statistically-valid surveys into state water monitoring programs. The amended guidelines are in this **Federal Register** notice in their entirety and replace the guidelines published March 29, 2006. DATES: The guidelines are effective on July 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan Warren, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 4503T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; * telephone number:*
(202)566-1215; *e-mail address: warren.joan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information *Regulated Entities:* States, interstate agencies, and tribes that are eligible to receive grants under section 106 of the CWA. II. Background Numerous reports have identified the need for improved water quality monitoring and analysis at local, state, or national scales. In 2000, the General Accounting Office reported that EPA and states cannot make statistically-valid assessments of water quality and lack the data to support key management decisions. In 2001, the National Research Council recommended that EPA and states promote a uniform, consistent approach to ambient monitoring and data collection to support core water quality programs. In 2002, the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment found that water quality data are inadequate for reporting on fresh water, coastal and ocean water quality indicators at a nationwide scale. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued similar conclusions in 2004. The National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA)stated that improved water quality monitoring is necessary to help states make more effective use of limited resources. EPA's Draft Report on the Environment 2003 found that there is not sufficient information to provide a national answer with confidence and scientific credibility to the question, `What is the condition of U.S. waters and watersheds?' EPA has been working with federal, state, and other partners to develop and promote the use of a variety of monitoring tools to most efficiently answer water quality management questions at multiple geographic scales. Statistically-based surveys, predictive models, remote sensing and targeted monitoring are examples of these tools. In combination, these tools can be used by states and tribes to describe the magnitude of water resource concerns, help focus on key stressors that are both widespread and high risk, and prioritize site-specific monitoring activities to identify and address problem areas. Incorporating these tools into monitoring strategies and into monitoring program designs should help states and tribes meet multiple state and national monitoring objectives cost-effectively. States have traditionally monitored only a small percentage of all the nation's waters: Approximately 20% of streams and rivers, 40% of lakes, and 35% of estuarine waters. They have used a site-specific, targeted monitoring approach to generally focus limited monitoring resources on heavily used or problem waters. The waters monitored may not reflect conditions in state waters as a whole. In addition, states often monitor a different set of waters from cycle to cycle. These targeted assessments, while providing important site-specific information, do not fully meet the intent of the CWA section 305(b) requirement. Under section 305(b) states must report on the extent of their waters meeting the fishable and swimmable goals of the CWA. Statistically-valid surveys offer a cost-effective and efficient way to fulfill CWA requirements, complement traditional monitoring designs, and support a broader range of management decisions. There is widespread acceptance of the use of statistical surveys in reports on the nation's housing, labor, health, agricultural, and other sectors. To address the need for credible reports on water quality status and trends nationwide, the President's Fiscal Year 2005 through FY 2009 budgets specifically requested “Not less than $18.5 million shall be provided through Clean Water Act Section 106 grants for State and interstate agencies' implementation of EPA-approved statistically representative, probabilistic water quality monitoring activities.” The FY 2006 Conference Report, which accompanied EPA's FY 2006 appropriation, designated an additional, separate portion of the total section 106 funds to be targeted for this monitoring initiative. On January 3, 2006, EPA published a revision to its CWA section 106 grant regulations (40 CFR 35.162(d)) that provides the Agency with the flexibility to allot separately funds such as these which have been targeted for specific water pollution control elements (71 FR 17, January 3, 2006). In this situation, such allotment can occur only after EPA establishes an allotment formula after consultation with states and interstate agencies. On March 29, 2006, EPA published the guidelines for applying the increased funding to enhance monitoring activities, including maintaining and improving statistically-valid water quality monitoring programs to provide information for decision makers and the public. These amended guidelines include this allotment formula, as well as further details regarding the use of and accountability for these funds. III. Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds Under Section 106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes These guidelines describe the formula necessary for EPA to allot section 106 water pollution control program grant funds that have been targeted to support enhanced monitoring efforts by states, interstate agencies, and tribes. These guidelines also describe the specific activities that states, interstate agencies, and tribes must implement to receive the monitoring initiative funds. These activities will improve state and tribal capacity to monitor and report on water quality through the two components of the monitoring initiative: Implementation of comprehensive monitoring strategies including building capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys of water condition, and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. The first component will strengthen state and tribal programs consistent with priorities contained in their comprehensive monitoring strategies. The second component may serve state and tribal programs and produce a statistically-valid survey of water condition at nationwide and regional scales. States may opt to build upon these national/regional surveys to obtain a state-scale statistical survey. Data gathered through the national/regional-scale surveys can be used to support water quality criteria development and to identify the extent to which emerging pollutants may be of concern. Survey data may potentially be used for developing state-scale predictive tools, documenting the performance of monitoring methods, and assessing the comparability of data. EPA consulted with states and interstate organizations in the development of these guidelines beginning in March 2004. EPA reached an understanding with the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) on the distribution of the monitoring initiative increment in the FY 2005 section 106 grant funds. EPA continued discussions with ASIWPCA about the monitoring increment grant funds, including use of the FY 2006 increment for statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. EPA also consulted with state environmental commissioners through the Environmental Council of the States. Beginning in November 2007, EPA consulted with states and interstate organizations in the development of this amendment through conference calls with a workgroup composed of members of ASIWPCA. A. Formula for Allocation of Monitoring Initiative Funds To be eligible to receive monitoring initiative funds, states, interstate agencies, and tribes must apply for the funds by preparing a workplan that details planned actions for carrying out both components of the monitoring initiative: Implementation of comprehensive monitoring strategies and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. A state may request in-kind assistance from EPA under the grant to complete the survey for the sites located within its jurisdiction. If a state does not apply for funds or meet the workplan criteria in these guidelines to implement its strategy and/or complete the survey, including requesting in-kind assistance, EPA may withhold the funds allotted for this purpose and award the funds to any eligible recipient in the region, including another agency of the same state or an Indian tribe/tribal consortium for the same environmental program (40 CFR 35.117). For Fiscal Year 2006 and beyond: Allocation of Monitoring Initiative Funds $18.23 million* will be distributed in the following manner: * EPA will use this numerical formula to determine the monitoring allotments for FY 2009 and beyond based on the amount of EPA's final annual budget targeted for these purposes. 1. $9.77 million of these funds will be allocated as follows for implementing monitoring strategies and building monitoring program capacity— $169,900 for each state, $84,950 for each territory and the District of Columbia, $240,410 to be distributed among interstate agencies, and $528,506 to be distributed among the tribes, in accordance with the section 106 grant formula for tribes. 2. $8.45 million will be allocated for surveying water quality condition nationwide. Grant recipients will use this portion of the monitoring initiative funds for statistically-valid surveys of water body condition repeated over time to determine status and trends in water condition. The distribution of these funds will be tailored based on the water body type being surveyed, i.e., coastal waters, streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, and the number of sample sites needed. EPA will work with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to define the target population (size and type of water body) for each survey. After this consultation, EPA will develop a list of randomly selected sites to be sampled for the survey. For each survey, approximately 1,000 sites in the contiguous 48 states will be sampled. A state or tribe in the contiguous 48 states will receive funding for each sampling site falling within its jurisdiction. A separate fund of $450,000 will be used to support survey work in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the trust territories. If a grant recipient is able to sample the sites needed for its participation in a nationwide survey for less than the funds allotted for each site, the remaining funds must be used for implementation of its monitoring strategy and/or to build capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys. Performance-Based Standard for Implementation of Statistical Surveys 3. To accelerate the use of state-scale statistical surveys as called for in the President's budget requests, EPA is incorporating a performance-based standard in the allotment of the section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds. This performance-based standard will start in FY 2008 with adjustments to allocations, if necessary, beginning in FY 2009. Monitoring Initiative funds may continue to be used for building state monitoring program capacity according to the guidelines, set out in March 2006 and discussed above in Section III.A.1, as long as at least five states each year adopt state-scale statistically-valid surveys as part of their state monitoring programs. During FY 2007, 30 states were implementing, as part of their monitoring network, statistical surveys at the state-scale for at least one water resource. This number serves as the baseline for the performance-based standard. The goal is to have five additional states adopt the use of state-scale statistically-valid surveys each year (i.e., 35 States in 2008, 40 in 2009, 45 in 2010, and 50 in 2011). For every state below the target of five additional states each year, beginning with the allotment of FY 2009 Monitoring Initiative funds, 20% of the Monitoring Initiative funds used for building monitoring capacity (100% equals $169,900 * per state) will be reallocated among those states implementing state-scale statistical surveys. For example, if only three additional states adopt the use of statistical surveys by the end of FY 2008 (for a total of 33 states, two states short of the goal of five additional states), 40% of the capacity building funds (i.e., $67,960 per state * ) of the 17 states not implementing statistical surveys will be evenly reallocated in FY 2009 to the 33 states that are implementing such surveys (i.e., $35,009 per state * ). * These amounts assume the same level of funding as specified in Section IIIA1. Process and Criteria for Determining Implementation of Statistical Surveys as a Component of a State's Monitoring Program At the end of each fiscal year beginning in FY 2008, a state must submit a certification to EPA that the state is implementing a state-scale statistically-valid survey meeting the criteria set out below. EPA, through Headquarters' and Regional Monitoring Coordinators' consultation, will make a determination on the status of state implementation of state-scale statistical surveys based on the state's certification and adherence to the following criteria: a. State is implementing a statistical survey design that provides condition estimates for a population of waters (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, coastal waters, or wetlands) of the state based on an unbiased, representative sample of a subset of those waters. i. The state assesses water quality conditions using core indicators for at least one designated use consistent with the *Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program* guidance. Over time, state surveys incorporate a full suite of appropriate biological, chemical and physical indicators as described in the guidance. Initial statistically-valid, probability surveys (through 2012), however, may be based on a subset of indicators tailored to specific water quality issues (e.g., biological integrity, recreation, fish consumption, etc.). ii. The implementation of a state-scale statistically-valid survey may span several years. A state may use a rotating basin approach and survey different watersheds over time, or spread the sites required across the state over multiple years—as long as these surveys can be aggregated for a state-scale survey. For example, a state may choose to sample 10 sites each year over a five-year period. iii. States may use methods and protocols employed in the national surveys, or state methods. iv. State surveys aim to achieve 90% confidence +/−10%. This typically requires about 50 sites. v. Surveys assess at least one water type (streams, lakes, rivers, coastal waters, or wetlands). vi. A state's monitoring strategy indicates a commitment to continuing statewide statistical surveys as a component of its comprehensive monitoring program. b. State continues to participate in the national/regional scale surveys, unless the state-scale survey is fully consistent with national survey design and methods. c. State reports the results of the state-scale survey by 2012, preferably as a component of the state's Integrated Report/305b/303d (narrative form) and/or in the probability survey module of the Assessment Database. (EPA will modify this module to accommodate state assessment categories, *e.g.* , good/ fair/poor, biocondition gradient levels, etc.). [ *Note:* EPA acknowledges that because of the unique nature of its land and waters, the State of Alaska may take longer to meet the above criteria.] B. Supplemental Workplans for Monitoring Initiative Activities These guidelines describe the types of commitments grant recipients must include in a separate workplan covering the monitoring initiative portion of their section 106 grant. Because these funds have to be tracked and reported separately, EPA will negotiate specific annual activities to be included in these workplans that must address how recipients will
(1)implement the state, interstate agency, or tribal monitoring strategy, including implementing or building capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys of water condition, and
(2)collaborate on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. 1. Implementing Monitoring Strategies Why Strategies Are Important An important objective for state, interstate agency, and tribal monitoring strategies is to maximize the efficiency of monitoring and assessment resources to increase the amount of waters monitored or assessed; provide the information needed to allow decision makers and the public to set priorities; develop and apply controls; and determine the effectiveness of our investments in water quality protection and restoration. EPA agrees with the NAPA finding that investing in efficient monitoring and assessment programs will result in social cost savings by ensuring that the resources invested in environmental protection activities are addressing the greatest needs and are achieving performance objectives. In addition, the successful use of market-based approaches, such as trading for water quality protection and restoration, depends on the availability of adequate monitoring data and information. State Water Monitoring and Assessment Strategies In March 2003, EPA issued the *Elements of State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program* guidance to provide a framework for strengthening state monitoring programs by the end of FY 2014. This guidance describes 10 elements of a water monitoring and assessment program. The elements provide a basic framework that may be tailored to the specific needs of states or other organizations. A brief description of each element is provided below. • Monitoring Program Strategy The comprehensive monitoring program strategy is a long-term plan that describes how the state implements a monitoring program that serves water quality decision needs for all its waters, including streams, rivers, lakes, the Great Lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and ground water. The strategy should describe how the state addresses each of the other nine elements of the guidance. It should reflect the input of the full range of monitoring partners within the state. • Monitoring Objectives Monitoring objectives drive the state's implementation of monitoring activities. The state's objectives should reflect the needs of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and other water management activities. These objectives include, but are not limited to, assessing the extent of state waters that support the goals of the CWA. • Monitoring Design The monitoring design explains how monitoring sites are selected to meet monitoring objectives, including providing water quality data of documented quality for many purposes such as setting water quality standards, assessing overall water conditions, listing impaired waters, developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and writing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. To meet decision needs most efficiently, states may integrate several monitoring designs (e.g., fixed station, intensive and screening-level monitoring, rotating basin, judgmental and probability design). Over half of the states are implementing statistically-valid surveys as a component of their monitoring network. As states implement their state monitoring strategies, EPA expects them to build capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys of water condition. EPA encourages states to leverage the national/regional scale surveys to support these state-scale statistically-valid surveys. Monitoring designs may also incorporate predictive tools such as landscape and water quality modeling, remote sensing and deployed data sondes. • Core and Supplemental Water Quality Indicators A core set of monitoring indicators (e.g., water quality parameters) includes physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological, and biological/ecological endpoints selected to assess attainment with applicable water quality standards throughout the state. The core indicators should be supplemented, as appropriate, to meet the full range of monitoring objectives. Supplemental indicators should be monitored when there is a reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant may be present in a watershed, or to support a special study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern. • Quality Assurance A state must have a quality assurance program to ensure the scientific validity of monitoring data and of sampling and laboratory activities. Data of documented quality are critical to support decision making and resource allocation. • Data Management Timely access to data of documented quality is another key element of a state monitoring program. All states are expected to use an electronic data system to manage water quality, fish tissue, toxicity, sediment chemistry, habitat, and biological data. The state data management strategy should address timely data entry, follow appropriate metadata and state/federal geo-locational standards, and allow public access. Consistent with CWA section 106(e), EPA will require states to use the new Water Quality Exchange to transfer data to EPA's STORET data warehouse from the state's data management system. • Data Analysis/Assessment A state's assessment methodology describes how water quality data are evaluated to determine whether waters are attaining water quality standards. The assessment methodology addresses how states collect data from various monitoring sources (including federal, state and local governments, volunteer monitors, academia, permitted dischargers under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), drinking water utilities, etc.), what types and quality of data are needed to support different levels of decisions, and how data are reviewed, analyzed and compared to water quality standards. • Reporting A monitoring program must ensure timely submission of water quality reports and lists, such as those required under sections 106, 303(d), 305(b), 314 and 319 of the CWA and section 406 of the Beaches Act. EPA encourages states to streamline reporting activities by consolidating reports and using electronic data management and reporting systems. EPA's *2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance* called for integration and consistency in the development and submission of section 305(b) water quality reports and section 303(d) impaired waters lists. To accomplish this integration, EPA expects that all states will use EPA's Assessment Database
(ADB)or a compatible electronic format to record their water quality assessment decisions. • Programmatic Evaluation The state, in consultation with EPA, should conduct periodic reviews of its monitoring program to determine how well it serves water quality decision needs for all waters of the state. This involves evaluating each aspect of the monitoring program to determine how well each of the elements listed here are being implemented to serve water resource management activities and to identify needed changes and additions for future monitoring cycles. • General Support and Infrastructure Planning The state monitoring strategy should identify current and future resource needs to fully implement its monitoring program. This planning activity should describe funding, staff, training, laboratory and information management resources and needs. Tribal Monitoring Strategies In October 2006, EPA issued *Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act* that requires tribes to develop monitoring strategies appropriate to their capabilities and needs, and provide reports on water quality to EPA. The tribal guidance outlines reporting requirements and data expectations for all tribal programs receiving section 106 funds. These requirements will help tribes to collect critical data and information for effective management of their water quality programs. The requirements will also help EPA measure environmental results of the section 106 Tribal Program and comply with the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA)and other federal requirements. In the reports that tribes are required to submit as set forth in their CWA section 106 work plan, tribes will be required to include the following: a description of identified needs, goals, and objectives of their monitoring programs; a description of sampling methodology and parameters sampled; and a narrative account detailing the types of water sampled, sampling procedures, data summaries, and the tribe's interpretation of both the data and the assessment methodology used. Tribes are also required to the maximum extent possible to include water quality data for up to nine parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, turbidity, *E. coli* or enterococci, macroinvertebrates, and basic habitat information. Using Section 106 Monitoring Initiative Funds To Implement Monitoring Strategies EPA expects states, territories, interstate organizations and tribes to use the first component of the monitoring initiative to assist in implementation of their monitoring strategies in keeping with schedules set out in the strategies, including implementing or building capacity for state-scale statistically-valid surveys of water condition. The monitoring activities for which these funds are used must be accounted for and reported on through separate section 106 workplans, and must be used to help states and tribes build program capacity to enhance water monitoring activities. Funds must not be used for ongoing or routine monitoring activities. They could be used to develop or augment a state's monitoring network design. For example, activities could include implementing a state-scale statistically-valid survey, expanding coverage, adding waterbody types, increasing intensive monitoring (e.g., watersheds); developing or refining core and supplemental indicators, including biological assessment programs; enhancing data analysis and management; increasing lab capability; and/or hiring new staff or purchasing equipment. EPA Regional monitoring and section 106 staff will work with each section 106 grant recipient to ensure that the workplan reflects these monitoring activities and that the state or tribe is making progress in implementing the priorities and milestones set out in its monitoring strategy. EPA and the states through their monitoring strategies have identified the following activities, among others, as priorities for enhancing monitoring programs: • Leveraging resources through partnerships to improve data management to facilitate data sharing and reduce redundancy of sample collection; • Developing predictive tools to extend use of monitoring data; • Using statistically-valid monitoring designs and assessment methodologies to represent the condition of all state or tribal waters with statistically-valid (probability-based) surveys and account for variability in water quality and uncertainty in sampling methods; and • Improving the rigor of biological condition assessment to take advantage of its ability to integrate the effects of multiple stressors, provide a more accurate assessment of ecological effects, and improve diagnostic ability to identify causes of degradation. 2. Collaborating on Statistically-Valid Surveys of the Nation's Waters Supplemental workplans must also address activities that state and tribes will implement as part of their participation in the statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. A key element of improving the credibility of reports on the condition of the nation's waters as called for under CWA section 305(b) is the use of a statistically-valid survey design. The *Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program* recommends that monitoring strategies include the use of probability-based networks that support statistically-valid inferences about the extent of waters that support the goals of the CWA and achieve state water quality standards. EPA's 1997 *Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates* , written with state participation, also recommends the use of probabilistic monitoring or statistically-valid surveys as a cost-effective and reliable means for assessing water quality status and trends. Why Surveys Are Important Statistically-valid surveys are an efficient way to determine the extent to which waters support healthy aquatic communities. Detailed information collected about the health of aquatic communities in a random sample of a specific water body type (streams, coastal waters, lakes, rivers, and wetlands) can be used to make inferences, with documented confidence, about the condition of the larger universe of similar waters—most of which are currently unassessed (only 19% of streams and rivers, 37% of lakes, and less than 2% of wetlands were assessed for the 2002 reporting cycle). This design can be implemented at a national, regional, state, or local level to provide a benchmark about how much of the resource needs protection or restoration. The short term objective for water quality surveys is to achieve comprehensive assessments of water quality. Over the long term, statistical surveys are a cost-effective means of determining trends over time and evaluating the effectiveness of water quality protection and restoration efforts. Statistically-valid surveys provide data that serve other water quality management needs ranging from additional information about each monitoring site to contributing to the development of water quality standards. They can be used with other datasets to develop predictive tools that help prioritize site-specific monitoring and identify problem areas. Basic Activities for Implementing Statistically-Valid Surveys The CWA section 106 monitoring initiative guidelines require states and tribes to collaborate on statistically-valid surveys to assess water condition in coastal waters, streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands. Many states are already implementing or participating in statistically-valid designs for monitoring the condition of coastal waters, rivers and streams, and lakes. EPA intends that these national/regional-scale surveys complement existing state efforts using survey designs and methods that generate comparable assessment results. The collaborative assessments will build upon and continue the success of national, regional, state, tribal, and local partnerships such as the National Coastal Assessment, the Wadeable Streams Assessment and Assessment of Western Rivers and Streams, the National Lake Fish Tissue Study, the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. The guidelines generally address the roles and responsibilities of EPA, states, and tribes in generating cost-effective comparable assessments of water resources. As EPA, states, and tribes collaborate on the survey for each water resource type, EPA will issue clarifying guidance for the specific activities involved in planning and implementing the survey. The clarifying guidance will contain information on number and location of sampling sites, indicators, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols, field data collection and lab methods, timelines for carrying out survey activities, and the funding levels needed for sampling and analyses at each sampling site. The basic activities involved in statistical surveys are described below. • Monitoring Objectives The basic objective of these surveys is to generate statistically-valid estimates of the extent of water resources that support healthy aquatic communities and human activities, and to assess the relative importance of key stressors on water quality. The surveys will produce estimates of the condition of various water body types, i.e., coastal waters, streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, at both regional and national scales. States are encouraged to leverage these surveys to help support their own state-scale surveys. EPA will host meetings to bring together states and other experts to shape the planning and implementation of each survey, including detailed definitions of the survey objectives, design and indicators, field implementation, and analysis and reporting. • Statistically-Valid Design The design, developed in collaboration with states, tribes and other partners, will reflect the input provided through national meetings and other discussions about the definition of the water resources under investigation and the various sub-classes of the resource that need to be characterized by the survey. EPA will generate a statistically-valid representative network design that identifies the primary and alternate random monitoring sites within each eco-region. In addition EPA will provide interested states with a randomized network design for state-scale or finer characterizations. • Indicators The indicators used to describe the condition of water resources and extent of waters will vary depending upon the water body type surveyed. EPA will work with states and other experts to identify the core indicators that will be used to evaluate the ecological condition of water resources, the extent of water resources that support human activities, and the key stressors affecting waters. The indicator measurements will be taken using consistent or comparable procedures at all sites to ensure the results can be compared across the country. States and tribes are encouraged to include additional indicators (as described in the *Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program* ) to address specific questions and to generate more robust assessments. • Quality Assurance EPA policy and regulations require documentation and implementation of standard operating procedures
(SOPs)and QA/QC protocols for environmental monitoring. After meetings and discussions with states and other experts on the objectives, design and indicators for each survey, EPA will develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP)and appropriate SOPs. The QAPP describes the study objectives, the survey design, the data quality objectives it supports, the core indicators or parameters and their related measurement quality objectives, and field and lab protocols including quality control activities, data management, data analysis and reporting. EPA will provide training for field crews and will ensure implementation of the quality control measures defined in the QAPP. States and other partners participating in the survey will either certify that they will implement the EPA QAPP and SOPs or, if the state elects to implement comparable methods, the state will provide its QAPP and SOPs to EPA for review and approval prior to initiating field work. • Field Data Collection Field data collection includes site reconnaissance, field data collection, and quality control activities such as repeat sampling. The CWA section 106 grant survey fund will provide resources to states and tribes for the implementation of field data collection activities as well as lab analysis described below. States and other organizations accepting responsibility for site reconnaissance and field data collection will certify that they are adhering to the approved EPA and/or state QAPP and SOPs described above. EPA will provide training in field sampling protocols and oversee implementation of the QA/QC activities. EPA's intent is that the survey fund can offset the costs of state-scale water quality surveys in addition to contributing to national and regional assessments of the condition of the nation's waters. State and tribal water quality programs may direct these resources a number of ways to accomplish the site reconnaissance and field sampling: Implementing site reconnaissance and field sampling directly; providing the funds to other organizations within the state through interagency agreement; issuing grants and/or contracts; and/or requesting EPA provide in-kind services consisting of EPA contractor support to perform the field data collection activities on behalf of the state. • Laboratory Analysis Any laboratory processing the chemical or biological samples collected for the surveys must demonstrate that they can meet the quality standards presented in the QAPP. This includes initial demonstrations of technical capability and performance evaluations. Field samples should be promptly shipped to the approved analytical or processing laboratories as these facilities are generally better geared to properly hold the samples while they await analyses. At the laboratory, samples will be processed in accordance with the laboratory SOPs, including QA/QC activities. Each participating laboratory must certify that they are adhering to the approved EPA and/or state QAPP and laboratory SOPs. Each laboratory is expected to review their final data for completeness, accuracy, and precision to assure that the basic quality criteria are met prior to submitting their final data report. EPA will oversee implementation of the QA/QC activities. The CWA section 106 grant survey fund will provide resources to states and tribes for the implementation of laboratory analysis of field samples. State and tribal water quality programs may direct these resources a number of ways to accomplish the laboratory analysis of field samples: Analyzing samples directly; providing the funds to other organizations within the state through interagency agreement; issuing grants and/or contracts; and/or requesting EPA provide in-kind services consisting of EPA contractor support to perform the lab analysis activities on behalf of the state. • Data Management EPA will provide support for data management to facilitate rapid access to data and transfer of data into EPA's Water Quality Exchange or STORET-compatible system. • Data Analysis and Interpretation EPA will work with states and tribes to develop general protocol(s) to analyze and interpret the survey results. The data analysis protocols will build on existing efforts of states, tribes, EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, and other organizations to develop statistically-valid and environmentally relevant thresholds for interpreting the physical, chemical and biological integrity of water resources, including the Tiered Aquatic Life Use Workgroup's framework for reporting data within a biological condition gradient that is independent of individual state water quality standards. EPA will host national and/or regional meetings to facilitate evaluation and selection of appropriate protocols for data analysis and interpretation. • Reporting EPA will work with states and tribes to develop regional and national scale reports that present the results of the surveys and provide information to track the condition of the nation's waters and help guide the setting of national, regional and state priorities for water quality protection and restoration. The reports will describe the extent that the water body type surveyed supports healthy aquatic communities and human activities such as fishing and swimming. The reports will also describe key water quality and habitat characteristics associated with healthy and degraded resources. As states continue to implement state-scale surveys, the report will include these results as well as describe additional insights gained from analyzing additional data that states and tribes add to the analysis. EPA will host national and/or regional meetings to provide input to the reports. Using Section 106 Monitoring Initiative Funds for State Activities To Support Surveys of the Nation's Waters The distribution of these funds will ensure states and tribes receive the basic level of funding required to implement the surveys at the minimal scale of regional and national reporting. EPA's intent is that this seed money can be leveraged by states to support implementation of state-scale surveys as states are able to incorporate this tool into their monitoring programs. The initial strategy for distribution of the survey funds is to tailor distribution, based on the water resource type being surveyed, i.e., coastal waters, streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, and the number of sample sites identified within each jurisdiction. In the contiguous 48 states, a state or tribe will receive funding for each sampling site falling within its jurisdiction. A separate fund of $450,000 will be used to support survey work in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the trust territories over time. To ensure the success of the surveys, states and tribes must commit annually, in separate state and tribal section 106 workplans, to undertake activities that will be needed as part of the surveys. Grant commitments will address both the timing and scope of these activities, which are described in the previous section and summarized below: • Travel to participate in national and/or regional meetings for planning, scoping, data analysis and interpretation and reporting; • Site reconnaissance to verify that sites meet the definition for inclusion in the survey; • Sample collection and lab analysis in accordance with EPA approved QAPP and SOPs; • Participation in QA/QC activities; and • Provision of final sample results in electronic format. State and tribal water quality programs may use the CWA section 106 survey funds to accomplish these activities in a number of ways including implementing the survey directly, providing the funds to other organizations within the state through interagency agreement, issuing grants and/or contracts, and/or requesting EPA provide in-kind services consisting of EPA contractor support to perform the survey implementation activities on behalf of the state. Schedule for Statistically-Valid Surveys See *http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html* to view the schedule for statistically-valid surveys. Conclusion Because numerous and long-standing critiques have identified the need for improved water quality monitoring and analysis at local, state, or national scales, the Administration requested and Congress appropriated an increase to CWA section 106 grant funds specifically targeted for water quality monitoring improvements. States have traditionally monitored only a small percentage of all the nation's waters, and focused their limited monitoring resources on heavily used or problem waters. This targeted monitoring, while providing important site-specific information, does not provide scientifically defensible state or national reports on the extent of waters meeting the fishable and swimmable goals of the CWA. Statistically-valid surveys offer a cost-effective and efficient way to fulfill these requirements, complement traditional monitoring designs, and support a broader range of management decisions. There is widespread acceptance of the use of statistical surveys in reports on the nation's housing, labor, health, agricultural, and other sectors. To accelerate the use of state-scale statistical surveys as called for in the President's budget requests, EPA is amending the March 29, 2006, *Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grants to States, Interstate Agencies, and Tribes* to incorporate a performance-based standard in the allotment of the section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds. Monitoring Initiative funds will continue to be used for building state monitoring program capacity according to the guidelines as long as states make progress in adopting state-scale statistically-valid surveys as part of their state monitoring programs. EPA's long-term goal for water quality monitoring is to enhance state and tribal capacity to implement an integrated monitoring framework which uses multiple tools to cost-effectively address the full range of water quality management decision needs, for all water resource types and uses at appropriate scales. EPA and the states will work together to meet this goal through assessing all waters using sound science, strengthening state monitoring and assessment programs, and employing innovations that implement cost-effective monitoring. References Council on Environmental Quality. *U.S. Ocean Action Plan, The Bush Administration's Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. http://ocean.ceq.gov/* and *http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf* . General Accounting Office. March 2000. *Water Quality-Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data* . GAO/RCED-00-54. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2002. *The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters and Living Resources of the United States* . Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. National Research Council. 2001. *Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction* . National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Academy of Public Administration. December 2002. *Understanding What States Need to Protect Water Quality* . Academy Project Number 2001-001. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. *An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final Report, 2004. http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology—Toward a Compendium of Best Practices. http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. *Draft Report on the Environment* . EPA 600-R-03-050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program* . March 2003. *http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated Quality Assurance Project Plan for Surface Waters Research Activities* . June 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions* . October 12, 2006. *http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates* . 1997. *http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/guidelines.html* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *National Coastal Condition Report 2001, National Coastal Condition Report 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Summary of EPA's 2006 Budget* —“Goal 2” Section. *http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2006/2006bib.pdf.* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams* . December 2006. *http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/* . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *Final Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act* . October 2006. *http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/106tgg07.htm* . IV. Additional Supplementary Information The complete text of today's guidelines, located above, is also available at the following EPA Web sites: *http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/pollutioncontrol.htm* and *http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring* . V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this grant action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq.) or sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999
(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this action does not generally create new binding legal requirements, where it does, such requirements do not substantially and directly affect tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. section 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. section 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Since this final grant action contains legally binding requirements, it is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit this action in its report to Congress under the Act. Dated: July 8, 2008. Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. [FR Doc. E8-16385 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130; FRL-8690-3] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability; Information Concerning the Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is making available to the public information concerning the destruction of controlled ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs)in the United States. As a Party to the *Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer* (Montreal Protocol) and consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)as amended in 1990, the United States regulates the destruction of ODSs in a manner that prevents (or minimizes) emissions of the substances into the atmosphere, where they deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. Regulations governing the destruction of ODSs in the United States are contained in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, and include seven permitted destruction technologies, required destruction efficiency, and associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition to the stratospheric ozone protection regulations under the CAA, a number of other regulations also govern the destruction of ODSs in the United States including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Today, EPA is making available the draft report *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* , prepared by ICF International. The report analyzes ODS destruction practices in the United States and includes data on the types and quantities of ODSs destroyed in the United States in previous years, estimates of future destruction trends, and a review of technologies currently being employed to destroy ODSs. Because EPA plans to use the technical information when developing regulations, EPA wants to provide the public with an opportunity to review the information and submit comments. Specifically, EPA requests comments on the report's characterization of current destruction practices and its estimates of types and quantities of controlled substances available in the future for destruction in the United States. EPA will only consider comments about the information presented in *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* and is not soliciting comments on any other topic. DATES: EPA will accept comments on the report through September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* . • Fax comments to
(202)566-1741. • *Mail:* Submit comments to Air and Radiation Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460, and Phone:
(202)566-1742. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to EDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 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 Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742. *Use http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten M. Cappel, by regular mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by courier service or overnight express: 1310 L Street, NW., Room 1047C Washington, DC 20005; by telephone:
(202)343-9556; or by e-mail: *cappel.kirsten@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline 1. What is today's action? 2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment? 3. Where can I get the information? 4. How is this action related to the existing regulations to phase out ODSs? 5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments? 6. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. What is today's action? This notice of data availability
(NODA)provides for public review and comment the report *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* . The report examines data pertaining to the types and quantities of ODSs destroyed in the United States in previous years, and estimates the types and quantities available in the future. In addition, the report presents information about existing technologies being employed domestically to destroy ODSs. The report also includes a summary of regulations promulgated under RCRA and the CAA that govern the destruction of ODSs. The contractor's summary of existing regulations appears in the report purely to provide context for the technical information presented and does not represent EPA guidance or interpretation. 2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment? EPA is making available, for review and comment, a draft report prepared by ICF International under contract to EPA, *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* . 3. Where can I get the information? All of the information can be obtained through the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES section above for docket contact info). In addition, a link to the report *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* will be on the EPA Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html* . 4. How is this action related to the existing regulations to phase out ODSs? EPA is considering amending its regulations governing the import of ODSs listed as either “Class I” or “Class II” controlled substances under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A in cases where ODSs are being imported for destruction. Over the last several years most developed countries have largely phased out of the most ozone-depleting ODSs, replacing them with substances that damage the ozone layer less or not at all. This transition has resulted in substantial quantities of ODSs that may have reached the end of their usefulness and thus potentially could be destroyed. EPA recognizes that when importers are importing ODSs for destruction, a set of requirements designed to address this specific situation may be needed to ensure that the material that enters the United States is destroyed effectively. The information contained in the report will assist EPA as it prepares to propose revised regulations for imports of controlled ODSs for purposes of destruction in the United States. 5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments? EPA is only accepting comments on the accuracy and completeness of the information outlined in this NODA and contained in the report *Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States* . Specifically, EPA requests comment on topics contained in this report including but not limited to: • Current destruction practices, including procedures for collecting and destroying ODSs; • ODSs destruction costs, including transportation costs, capital costs associated with equipment upgrades (i.e., to prevent corrosion from acid gases), and actual costs of destroying ODSs; • Estimates of types and quantities of ODSs available in the future for destruction; • Capacity of destruction facilities in the United States to destroy ODSs currently and in the future; • The extent to which destruction facilities in the United States and internationally are meeting the technical performance qualifications recommended by the Ozone Secretariat's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel
(TEAP)in the April 2002 Report of the Task Force on Destruction Technologies, and whether they are able to demonstrate that they are meeting those recommendations ( *i.e.* , providing trial burn data); and • Types of destruction technologies available internationally to destroy ODSs. EPA requests that commenters provide corrected information or suggested language, along with the rationale as to why the existing text was incorrect or incomplete. In addition, please provide any published studies or raw data supporting your claim. At this time, EPA is not requesting comments of a general or editorial nature, or unsubstantiated opinion. 6. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number In the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation related to your comments. Dated: July 7, 2008. Edward Callahan, Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E8-16384 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget July 8, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501—3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,
(202)395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov,* Federal Communications Commission, or an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the Web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*
(2)look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review”,
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB Control Number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-1022. *Title:* Sections 101.1403, 101.103(f), 101.1413, 101.1440 and 101.1417, MVDDS and DBS Reporting and Third Party Disclosure Requirements. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 217 respondents; 217 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* .50 hours—40 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion, annual and other reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 10,347 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $5,300. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission is revising this information collection
(IC)to consolidate five information collections with five different OMB Control Numbers into one comprehensive collection (OMB Control Numbers 3060-1022 through 3060-1026). Upon OMB approval, the Commission will eliminate OMB Control Numbers 3060-1023 through 3060-1026 and retain 3060-1022 as the active number for the OMB inventory. The Commission is not changing any of the reporting or third party disclosure requirements. We are simply modifying this IC to include the other four ICs as mentioned above. The following is a description of each rule section requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): a. Section 101.1403 requires certain Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) licensees to comply with the statutory broadcast carriage requirements of 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(1). These MVDDS licensees must obtain the prior express authority of a broadcast station before retransmitting that station's signal. b. Section 101.103(f) requires MVDDS licensees to provide notice of intent of construction of a proposed antenna to Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed Satellite Service (NGSO FSS) licensees operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band and to establish and maintain an Internet Web site of all existing transmitting sites and transmitting antenna that are scheduled for operation within one year including the “in service” dates. c. Section 101.1413 requires MVDDS licensees to file a showing of substantial service at five years and ten years into the initial license term. The substantial service requirement is defined as a “service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above the level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal”. The renewal application of an MVDDS licensee must include the following showings in order to claim a renewal expectancy:
(1)A coverage map depicting the served and unserved areas;
(2)a corresponding description of current service in terms of geographic coverage and population served or transmitter locations in the served areas; and
(3)copies of any Commission Orders finding the licensee to have violated the Communications Act or any Commission rule or policy and a list of any pending proceeding that related to any matter described by the requirements for the renewal expectancy. d. Section 101.1440 requires MVDDS licensees to collect information and disclose information to third parties. Section 101.1440 requires MVDDS licensees to conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transmitting antenna site to determine the location of all Direct Broadcast Satellite
(DBS)customers of record that may potentially be affected by the introduction of its MVDDS service. At least 90 days prior to the planned date of MVDDS commencement of operations, the MVDDS licensee must then provide specific information to the DBS licensee(s). Alternatively, MVDDS licensees may obtain a signed, written agreement from DBS customers of record stating that they are aware of and agree to their DBS system receiving MVDDS signal levels in excess of the appropriate Equivalent Power Flux Density
(EPFD)limits. The DBS licensee must thereafter provide the MVDDS licensee with a list of only those new DBS customer locations that have been installed in the 30-day period following the MVDDS notification that the DBS licensee believes may receive harmful interference or where the prescribed EPFD limits may be exceeded. If the MVDDS licensee determines that its signal level will exceed the EPFD limit at any DBS customer site, it shall take whatever steps are necessary, up to and including fining a new transmitter site. e. Section 101.1417 requires licensees to file with the Commission two copies of a “licensee information report” by March 1st of each year for the preceding calendar year. This report must include the name and address of the licensee; station(s) call letters and primary geographic service area(s); and statistical data for the licensee's station. The information is used by the Commission to monitor licensee compliance of FCC rules; ensure that prior to operation the MVDDS antenna meet the minimum spacing requirements; to determine whether the licensee is providing substantial service and for whether to apply for a renewal expectancy; to notify third parties of certain information; and to assist the Commission in analyzing trends and competition in the marketplace. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0905. *Title:* Section 18.213, Information to the User (Regulations for RF Lighting Devices). *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 3 respondents; 3 responses. *Estimated Time Per response:* 1 hour. *Frequency of Response:* Third party disclosure requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 3 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $75.00 for producing and labeling the equipment = $225. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* The Commission is revising this information collection after this 60 day comment period in order to obtain the full three year clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission is removing section 18.307 from this information collection because it was incorrectly included in the last submission to the OMB. Upon review of the rule section, it was determined that section 18.307 only contained technical standard limits and therefore, not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)and OMB approval. The Commission is also adjusting the annual cost estimate for this information collection by −$775 due to a mathematical error in the last submission to the OMB. Section 18.213 (for which the Commission is seeking continued OMB approval) requires information on industrial, scientific and medical equipment shall be provided to the user in the instruction manual or on the packaging of an instruction manual is not provided for any type of ISM equipment.
(a)The interference potential of the device or system;
(b)maintenance of the system;
(c)simple measures that can be taken by the user to correct interference; and
(d)manufacturers of RF lighting devices must provide an advisory statement, either on the product packaging or with other user documentation, similar to the following: *This product may cause interference to radio equipment and should not be installed near maritime safety communications equipment or other critical navigation or communication equipment operating between 0.45-30 MHz.* Variations of this language are permitted provided all the points of the statement are addressed and may be presented in any legible font or text style. The simple warning label with a short advisory statement will be used by the Commission to determine if an RF lighting device is in compliance with the applicable Commission rules and is capable of producing emissions in the 0.45-30 MHz band. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16321 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices Date and Time: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 2 p.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Status: This meeting will be closed to the public. Items To Be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. Person To Contact For Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-16182 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-M FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 1, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta** (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309: *1. Charles R. Carter, Sr., and George Lamar Weaver* , both of Jackson, Georgia, to acquire voting shares of First Georgia Community Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Georgia Community Bank, both of Jackson, Georgia. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-16378 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 11, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland** (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566: *1. CSB Bancorp, Inc.* , Millersburg, Ohio, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Indian Village Bancorp, Inc., Ghadenhutten, Ohio, and thereby indirectly acquire Indian Village Community Bank, Ghadenhutten, Ohio, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc.E8-16377 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting Time and Date: 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), July 21, 2008. Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Status: Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public. Matters to be Considered: Parts Open to the Public 1. Approval of the minutes of the June 30, 2008, Board member meeting. 2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director. a. Monthly Participant Activity Report. b. Legislative Report. 3. Quarterly Reports. a. Investment Performance and Policy Review. b. Vendor Financial Reports. 4. Report on Potential Risk of Loss to TSP Assets as a result of the Theoretical Insolvency of Barclays Global Investors. Parts Closed to the Public 5. Confidential Vendor Financial Data. Contact Person For More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs,
(202)942-1640. Dated: July 14, 2008. Thomas K. Emswiler, Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. [FR Doc. 08-1443 Filed 7-15-08; 9:58 am]
Connectionstraces to 79
Traces to 79 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
57 references not yet in our index
  • 16 CFR 305
  • 10 CFR 430
  • Pub. L. 110-140
  • 19 CFR 207
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 20 CFR 404
  • 20 CFR 416
  • 31 USC 3720A
  • 26 CFR 1
  • T.D. 9144
  • 36 CFR 262
  • 36 CFR 261
  • 40 USC 484(m)
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 50 Stat. 525
  • 7 USC 1010-1012
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 50 CFR 424.11(d)
  • 50 CFR 23
  • 50 CFR 23.15(c)(3)(i)
  • 50 CFR 23.71(d)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 435 U.S. 519
  • 803 F.2d 1016
  • 490 F. Supp. 1334
  • 40 CFR 1503.3
  • 40 CFR 1501.7
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 106-393
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • 40 CFR 1501.6
  • 40 CFR 1508.15
  • 40 CFR 1508.26
  • 15 USC 4001-21
  • 15 CFR 325
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
+ 17 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting announcement
C.F.R.§ 4.9
C.F.R.§ 305.15
C.F.R.§ 305.20
C.F.R.§ 305.5
U.S.C.§ 6294
U.S.C.§ 6291
C.F.R.§ 305.3
U.S.C.§ 1675
C.F.R.§ 207.60
SCOTUS435 U.S. 519
F. App'x803 F.2d 1016
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 1334
Cites 136 · 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.