Notices. Notice of public meetings

32,698 words·~149 min read·/register/2008/07/18/08-1449

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

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Fisheries Finance Program Requirements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0012. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 13,880. *Number of Respondents:* 1,735. *Average Hours per Response:* 8. *Needs and Uses:* NOAA operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. Application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion and annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

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

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

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: July 14, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16434 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).* *Title:* Seafood Inspection and Certification Requirements. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0266. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 8,139. *Number of Respondents:* 3,339. *Average Hours Per Response:* Application for inspection services, application for appeal, and contract completion, 5 minutes; label and specification submission, 30 minutes; Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) participant application, 60 hours; and HACCP current participants' recordkeeping, 40 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)operates a voluntary fee-for-service seafood inspection program (Program) under the authorities of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970. The regulations for the Program are contained in 50 CFR Part 260. The Program offers inspection grading, and certification services, including the use of official quality grade marks which indicate that specific products have been Federally inspected. Those wishing to participate in the Program must request the services and submit specific compliance information. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

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

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: July 14, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16435 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board (Docket 10-2008) Foreign-Trade Zone 64 - Jacksonville, Florida, Application for Expansion, Correction/Clarification The **Federal Register** notice published on March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12374) describing the application by the Jacksonville Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 64, requesting authority to include Temporary Site 1A on a permanent basis and to expand the zone to include an additional site in Jacksonville is corrected as follows: In paragraph 3, the correct acreage for proposed Site 7 should read 47 acres. The applicant is also requesting authority to delete 47 acres from Site 3 at the JPA Blount Island Terminal Complex, and Temporary Site 1A will be re-numbered as Site 8. Dated: July 11, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16498 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-809 Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary intent to rescind the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India manufactured by Hotmetal Forge (India) Pvt., Ltd. (Hotmetal) covering the period February 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007. * See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary Intent to Rescind New Shipper Review * , 73 FR 32291 (June 6, 2008) ( *Preliminary Intent* ). As we received no comments or new information after the publication of the *Preliminary Intent* , we have made no changes to our preliminary decision to rescind the new shipper review. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2924 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 6, 2008, the Department published the *Preliminary Intent* . We invited comments to comment on the *Preliminary Intent* , and received no comments. Period of Review The period of review

(POR)is February 1, 2007, to July 31, 2007. Rescission of New Shipper Review In the *Preliminary Intent* , we stated that we intended to rescind the review with respect to Hotmetal because we had determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Hotmetal's U.S. sales were not *bona fide* . *See Preliminary Intent* at 32291. Hotmetal submitted no comments, and we have found no basis for changing the determination announced in the Preliminary Intent. Therefore we are rescinding the new shipper review. Assessment of Antidumping Duties A cash deposit of 162.14 percent shall be collected for any entries produced/exported by Hotmetal. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP fifteen days after the publication of this notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: July 14, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16497 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-877 Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on lawn and garden steel fence posts (“fence posts”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). Because the domestic interested parties did not participate in the sunset review, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Staebler Berton or Juanita Chen AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4037 and

(202)482-1904. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 12, 2003, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on fence posts from the PRC. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 35197 (June 12, 2003). Pursuant to section 751(c) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated the sunset review of this order. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review* , 73 FR 24222 (May 2, 2008). The Department did not receive a notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from domestic interested parties by the deadline date. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). As a result, the Department determined that no domestic party intends to participate in the sunset review. On May 22, 2008, the Department notified the International Trade Commission of its intent to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order consist of all “U” shaped or “hat” shaped lawn and garden fence posts made of steel and/or any other metal, weighing 1 pound or less per foot, and produced in the PRC. The fence posts included within the scope of this order weigh up to 1 pound per foot and are made of steel and/or any other metal. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: fence posts, studded with corrugations, knobs, studs, notches or similar protrusions with or without anchor posts and exclude round or square tubing or pipes. These posts are normally made in two different classes, light and heavy duty. Light duty lawn and garden fence posts are normally made of 14 gauge steel (0.068 inches--0.082 inches thick), 1.75 inches wide, in 3, 4, 5, or 6 foot lengths. These posts normally weigh approximately 0.45 pounds per foot and are packaged in mini-bundles of 10 posts and master bundles of 400 posts. Heavy duty lawn and garden steel fence posts are normally made of 13 gauge steel (0.082 inches--0.095 inches thick), 3 inches wide, in 5, 6, 7, and 8 foot lengths. Heavy duty posts normally weigh approximately 0.90 pounds per foot and are packaged in mini-bundles of 5 and master bundles of 200. Both light duty and heavy duty posts are included within the scope of the order. Imports of these products are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 7326.90.85.35. Fence posts classified under subheading 7308.90 are also included within the scope of the order if the fence posts are made of steel and/or metal. Specifically excluded from the scope are other posts made of steel and/or other metal including “tee” posts, farm posts, and sign posts, regardless of weight. 1 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 1 Tee posts are made by rolling red hot steel into a “T” shape. These posts do not have tabs or holes to help secure fencing to them and have primarily farm and industrial uses. Determination to Revoke Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination revoking the order within 90 days after the initiation of the review. Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate or a substantive response, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this review; therefore, we are revoking this antidumping duty order. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is June 12, 2008 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of the antidumping duty order). The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after June 12, 2008. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year sunset review and notice are in accordance with section 751(c)(3)(A) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 30, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-16495 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN: 0648-XJ12 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), its Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee; its Research Set-Aside

(RSA)Committee; its Bycatch/Limited Access Privilege Program

(LAPP)Committee; and, its Protected Resources Committee will hold public meetings. DATES: The meetings will be held Monday, August 4, 2008 through Thursday, August 7, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific meeting dates and times. ADDRESSES: Renaissance Philadelphia Hotel, 500 Stevens Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19113; telephone:

(610)521-5900. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New St., Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(302)674-2331 ext. 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monday, August 4, 2008 *8 a.m. until noon* - The Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee will meet. *1 p.m. until 4 p.m.* - The Research Set-Aside Committee will meet in closed session with officials from NMFS. *4 p.m. until 5 p.m.* - The Bycatch/LAPP Committee will meet. Tuesday, August 5, 2008 *8:30 a.m. until 10 a.m.* - The Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Committee will meet. *10 a.m. until noon* - The Council will convene and receive presentations by NMFS officials regarding the Proposed Rule to modify National Standard 1 Guidelines and the outcome of the 47th Stock Assessment Review. *1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.* - The Council will consider approving Amendment 10 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP for Secretarial submission. *2:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.* - The Council will convene jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board. Wednesday, August 6, 2008 *8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.* - The Council will convene jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board. Thursday, August 7, 2008 *8 a.m. until 9 a.m.* - The Protected Resources Committee will meet. *9 a.m.* - The Council will convene to discuss Framework 2 to the Dogfish FMP; receive Committee reports; receive an update from NMFS officials on the Status of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP); and, conduct any continuing or new business. Agenda items by day for the Council's Committees and the Council itself are: *Monday, August 4* - the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will review public comments and develop preferred alternatives for Council consideration and action regarding submission of Amendment 10 for Secretarial action. The Bycatch/LAPP Committee will receive an update on the status of the draft of the bycatch pamphlet for catch and release practices, and address prioritizing bycatch information needs. *Tuesday, August 5* - The Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will meet to review and consider qualifying criteria to be used in the mackerel limited entry system that is being addressed in Amendment 11. The Council will convene for a presentation by NMFS officials regarding the proposed rule to modify National Standard 1 guidelines for Annual Catch Limits

(ACL)and Accountability Measures (AM). The Council will receive a report on the results of the 47th Stock Assessment Review including opinions of members of the Center for Independent Expertise's

(CIE)regarding the SAW reports on summer flounder that served as the basis for the 47th Stock Assessment Review. The Council will vote to approve (or not) Amendment 10 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP for Secretarial submission. The Council will then meet jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Boards to review the Scientific and Statistical Committee's and the Scup Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding proposed scup harvest levels and commercial management measures for the 2009 fishing year, and then adopt its recommendations for the harvest levels and commercial management measures for the 2009 scup fishery. *Wednesday, August 6* - the Council will convene and meet jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish Boards to review the Scientific and Statistical Committee's and the Summer Flounder, Black Sea Bass, and Bluefish Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding the summer flounder, black sea bass, and bluefish proposed harvest levels and commercial management measures for the 2009 fishing year, and then adopt its recommendations for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish harvest levels and commercial management measures for these fisheries in 2009. *Thursday, August 7* - the Protected Resources Committee will review NMFS' proposed list of fisheries

(LOF)and develop comments for Council consideration and action. The Council will convene to review and discuss proposed measures (adjustment mechanism for stock status determination criteria) for Framework 2 to the Dogfish FMP; report on regular business; receive an update on the status of NMFS' MRIP; receive Committee Reports; and, consider and address any continuing or new business. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address such emergencies. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Bryan,

(302)674-2331 ext 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: July 15, 2008. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16436 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG36 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Port of Anchorage Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project, Anchorage, Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization. SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), to the Port of Anchorage (herein after “Port”) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (herein after “MARAD”) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to the first year of construction of its Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project (herein after “Project”) at the Port, Anchorage, Alaska. DATES: Effective from July 15, 2008 - July 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA, application, and Environmental Assessment

(EA)prepared for this action are available by writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or online at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm* . Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly or Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and

(D)of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Under 50 CFR 216.104(b) of NMFS' implementing regulations for the MMPA, NMFS must publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of a proposed IHA or a notice of receipt for a request for the implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking. Information gathered during the associated comment period is considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, IHAs and regulations governing the issuance of Letters of Authorizations

(LOAs)for the proposed activity. Summary of Request On February 20, 2008, NMFS received a complete application from the Port and MARAD requesting a one-year IHA to take, by Level B harassment, up to 34 Cook Inlet beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ), 20 harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina* ), 20 harbor porpoises ( *Phocoena phocoena* ), and 20 killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ) incidental to the Project. The content and proposed mitigation in the application was a result of numerous discussions between the applicants and NMFS. Harassment to marine mammals could result from exposure to noise from pile driving. While dredging and use of other heavy machinery (tugs, dump scowls, barge mounted hydraulic excavators or clamshell equipment) are also associated with the Project, these activities are not expected to result in harassment as marine mammals, in particular beluga whales. NMFS prepared an EA for the proposed action which thoroughly analyzes and discusses potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from the Project. Harassment from pile driving associated with the Project may result in short-term, mild to moderate behavioral and physiological responses. Anticipated behavioral reactions of marine mammals include altered headings, fast swimming, changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, and feeding patterns, and changes in vocalizations. Physiological impacts are expected to be mild stress responses. However, NMFS has determined harassment would be limited to Level B, will result in a negligible impact to affected marine mammal species or stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for the taking for subsistence purposes. Specified Activities A detailed description of the Project can be found in the application and the NMFS prepared EA. However, for purposes of this notice, a summary of activities is provided. According to the application, the Project is designed to upgrade and expand the Port by replacing aging and obsolete structures and provide additional dock and backland areas. Located on the east bank of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet, the 129-acre port is operating at or above sustainable practical capacity. The expansion of the Port is necessary to adequately support the economic growth of Anchorage and the state of Alaska through 2025. The port currently serves 80 percent of Alaska's populated area, and it handles over 90 percent of consumer goods sold within the Alaskan Railroad distribution area (the Alaska Railroad runs from Seward through Anchorage, Denali, and Fairbanks to North Pole, with spurs to Whittier and Palmer (locally known as “The Railbelt”). According to the application, the existing dock can no longer be widened nor salvaged due to its advanced age and state of disrepair. The dock supporting the three cranes today was completed in 1961. Its projected life expectancy was 25-30 years; therefore, a new port is in order. Construction necessitates use of impact and vibratory pile drivers to install open cell sheet, 36 inch steal, and H- piles to construct the waterfront bulkhead structure that will facilitate increased dock space and the fendering system. In-water pile driving would occur between April- October, annually, until the new port is completed (2012). The new dock face will include 7,430 ft (2,265 m) of vertical sheet pile wharf and 470 ft (143 m) for a dry barge berth; however, the entire sheet pile wall will extend 9,893 ft (3,015 m) parallel to the shore. The completed marine terminal will include seven modern dedicated ship berths; two dedicated barge berths; rail access; modern shore-side facilities; equipment to accommodate cruise passengers, cement bulk, roll on/roll off and load on/load off cargo, containers, general cargo, Stryker Brigade Combat Team deployments, general cargo on barges, and petroleum, oils, and lubricants; and additional land area to support expanding military and commercial operations. Installation of the sheet pile is a multi-phased process and requires the use of impact and vibratory pile driving. The process is as follows:

(1)a template defining the curvature and shape of the cell face is placed on the ocean floor in the correct location;

(2)the template is secured in place using up to four temporary pipe-piles, approximate driving time for each pile is 5 minutes;

(3)adjacent sheet piles are then placed and “stabbed” over approximately half of the template, less if tidal currents are high at the time. Stabbing involves driving the pile a nominally short distance at reduced hammer energy to set the bottom of the pile deep enough into the soil to hold it in place while the next adjacent pile is started. Stabbing depths would be less than five feet, at reduced vibratory hammer energy;

(4)once a pile-group is “set” on the template, the piles are driven in a stair-step method advancing one pile five feet, then moving the hammer to the next pile, advancing that pile five feet, moving to the next and so on. This process is repeated at 5-foot intervals without resting until all the sheet piles are at design depth. Advancing the sheet pile in increments reduces driving strain on the interlocks and provides better vertical placement control;

(5)the next sheet pile-group is then “set” on the template with reduced energy in the adjacent location and the process repeated; and

(6)tail walls that are driven in-water may similarly be driven in groups as well. During the “stabbing” process, the Port has indicated that shut-down is not practicable. If the sheet pile wall is not secured in the ground before ceasing pile driving, it could easily break free, especially during periods of stronger currents. A free-floating sheet pile is both dangerous to the construction workers and could become a navigational hazard. Therefore, mitigation measures would apply to all pile driving operations except during the stabbing phase when a low, reduced energy vibratory hammer is used. The Port has indicated that approximately 550 hours of impact pile driving and 368 hours of vibratory pile driving will occur during the IHA timeframe. Using the best scientific data available, NMFS has determined that Level A harassment could occur if a pinniped or cetacean is exposed to sound levels at or above 190 and 180 dB re 1 micro Pascal, respectively. For pulsed sounds, such as impact pile driving, exposure to sound levels at or above 160 dB re 1 micro Pascal (but below Level A harassment thresholds) could result in Level B harassment. For continuous noise (non-pulsed), such a vibratory pile driving, the Level B harassment threshold is 120 dB re 1 micro Pascal. Based on an acoustic study conducted at the Port in October 2007, it is expected that average sound levels of impact driving will be approximately 177 dB re 1 micro Pascal at 19m in the frequency range of 100-15,000 Hz and vibratory pile driving sounds will be approximately 162 dB re 1 micro Pascal at 20m in the frequency range of 400-2,500 Hz. Further empirical data were collected to identify Level A and Level B harassment isopleths (Figure 1). For impact pile driving, the 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 micro Pascal isopleths are approximately 10m, 20m, and 350m from the pile hammer. Vibratory driving isopleths for 190 and 180 dB re 1 micro Pascal are both less than 10m, and 120 dB re 1 micro Pascal is 800m from the pile hammer. For comparative purposes, the distance across the Arm from the Port to Port MacKenzie (on the west side of Knik Arm) is approximately 4.88 km. The distance to the west bank directly across the Arm from the Port is approximately 4.17 km. EN18JY08.673 BILLING CODE 3510-22C Marine Mammals and Habitat Affected by the Activity Cook Inlet is utilized by several species of marine mammals; however, upper Cook Inlet marine mammal species diversity is limited. The Cook Inlet beluga whale is the most prevalent marine mammal in the action area. Harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales are also found in upper Cook Inlet but sporadically and in low density. While Steller's sea lions ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ) are present in lower Cook Inlet to some degree, there have been no reported sightings of this species in Knik Arm. Only four Steller sea lions have been sighted since 1999 in the Susitina Rive mouth area (Barbara Mahoney, personal communications, June 20, 2008); therefore, Steller's sea lions are not anticipated to be affected by the Project and will not be included in any MMPA authorization for the proposed action nor considered in more detail in this analysis. More information on Alaskan marine mammals can be found at ( *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources* . Beluga Whales A detailed description of Cook Inlet beluga whales can be found in the application, EA, and the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 14443, March 18, 2008) and summaries of status, distribution, habitat use, and hearing are provided here. The Cook Inlet beluga whale population is a discrete population comprised of approximately 375 individuals (NMFS, unpubl. data) as of 2008. This stock was listed as depleted under the MMPA and was proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854). On April 22, 2008, NMFS published a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing a 6-month extension (to October 20, 2008 ) on the determination for listing the Cook Inlet beluga whale DPS as endangered under the ESA (73 FR 21578). In general, Cook Inlet beluga whales utilize Knik Arm during the spring, summer, and fall months and retreat to lower, ice-free portions of Cook Inlet during the winter. From April through November whales concentrate at river mouths and tidal flat areas, moving in and out with the tides (Rugh *et al.* , 2000). In Knik Arm, beluga whales generally are observed arriving in May and often use the area all summer, feeding on the various salmon runs and moving with the tides. There is more intensive use of Knik Arm in August and through the fall, coinciding with the coho salmon run. Whales will gather in Eagle Bay (approximately 16 km north of the Port) and elsewhere on the east side of Knik Arm on the low tide. During high tides, beluga whales are generally concentrated around prime feeding habitats in the upper reaches of the Arm. No prime feeding habitats are located directly around the Port. Beluga whales frequently move in and out of deeper water and between feeding, calving, and nursery areas throughout the mid and upper Inlet. Open access to and between these areas is important. Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon River and the Susitna River delta areas are used extensively. Besides localized prime foraging areas, it is possible these sites provide for other biological needs such as calving or molting but this has not been confirmed. Such use of habitat has been reported elsewhere in Alaska, although there is not adequate information to identify these calving and molting habitat attributes to Knik Arm. Further, only the upper reaches of Knik Arm, beginning at Eagle Bay, have been identified as prime foraging area, not the area around the Port. Opportunistic beluga whale sightings at or near the Port have been reported for years to the NMFS Alaska Region

(AKR)(NMFS, unpubl. data). Sighting data have been collected by Port authorities on land or crew aboard commercial vessels (e.g., tugs). Although behavioral data were not collected for all sightings, available reports indicate that traveling is the prevalent behavior of beluga whales around the Port. Out of the 60 sightings that had behavioral data associated with them, 47 groups, including individuals, were reported traveling. Other behaviors noted included feeding (n=4), possible feeding (n=2), transversing Knik Arm (n=3), and association with vessels (n=4) where n is equal to the number of groups sighted. Interestingly, two groups associated with vessels were highly vocal and the crew reported vocalization resonating though the tug. Based on these data, habitat use around the Port from April- October has been determined to be primarily traveling. Whales are using this area as a corridor to access the upper reaches of Knik Arm where fish runs are prevalent in the summer months. Dedicated beluga whale surveys around the Port have also indicated that the greatest use of habitat around the Port is during or around low tide (Funk *et al.* , 2005, Ramos *et al.* , 2006, Cornick and Kendall, 2007). Beluga whales are characterized as mid-frequency odontocetes but are able to hear an unusually wide range of frequencies, covering most natural and man-made sounds. The hearing frequency range of this species is believed to be between 40 Hz-150 kHz with keen hearing at 10-100 kHz. Above 100 kHz, sensitivity drops off very quickly (Au, 1993), and below 16 kHz the decrease in sensitivity is more gradual at approximately 10 dB per octave (White *et al.* , 1978; Awbrey *et al.* , 1988). Peak sensitivity range of this species is outside of most industrial sounds but studies have shown that beluga whales can hear and react to such low frequency noise, dependent upon intensity (i.e., decibels). However, masking of their high frequency communication and echolocation signals is likely limited when exposed to lower frequency sounds (Thomas *et al.* , 1990). In addition, beluga whales are well adapted to change frequencies and intensities of their own calls to compensate for masking effects (Au *et al.* , 1985, Lesege *et al.* , 1999, Scheifele *et al.* , 2005). Harbor Seals Harbor seals are not listed as “depleted” under the MMPA or listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuaries, and occasionally fresh waters (Bigg 1969, 1981). In Alaska, commonly eaten prey include walleye, pollock, Pacific cod, capelin, eulachon, Pacific herring, salmon, octopus, and squid. They are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction; however, some long-distance movements have been recorded from tagged animals with juveniles traveling farther than adults (Lowry *et al.* 2001). The major haul-out sites for harbor seals are located in Lower Cook Inlet with the closest identified harbor seal haul-out site to the Port approximately 25 miles south along Chickaloon Bay in the southern portion of Turnagain Arm. However, harbor seals have been observed occasionally around the Port. In 2004-2005, 22 harbor seal sightings were reported over a 13-month period comprising of 14,000 survey hours. From these surveys, it is estimated that harbor seals occur in a density of approximately 1.7 animals per month in Knik Arm (LGL unpubl. data). Pinniped hearing is dependent upon the medium (i.e., air or water) in which they receive the sound. Most pinniped species have essentially flat audiograms from 1 kHz to 30 50 kHz with thresholds between 60 and 85 dB re 1 micro Pascal. At frequencies below 1 kHz, thresholds increase with decreasing frequency (Kastak and Schusterman, 1998), that is, the sound must be louder in order to be heard. Harbor seals in-water and in-air display significant disparities between hearing capabilites with hearing 25 30 dB better underwater than in air (Kastak and Schusterman, 1994). Harbor Porpoise Harbor porpoises are found within Cook Inlet but in low abundance, especially in Knik Arm. Currently, the population estimate for the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock is 41,854 with a minimum population estimate of 34,740 (Angliss and Outlaw, 2006). However, density of harbor porpoise in Cook Inlet is only 7.2 per 1000 square kilometers (Dahlheim *et al.* , 2000). The highest monthly count in upper Cook Inlet between April and October is 18 (Ramos *et al.* , 2006). Interactions with fisheries and entanglement in gear is the prime anthropogenic cause of mortality for this stock (mean annual mortality of 67.8) (Angliss and Outlaw, 2006). Harbor porpoises are not killed for subsistence reasons. Harbor porpoise have the highest upper-frequency limit of all odontocetes studied. They have a hearing range of 250 Hz-180 kHz with maximum sensitivity between 16-140 kHz. There is no available data on high frequency cetacean reactions to pulse sounds (e.g., impact pile driving); however, numerous studies have been conducted in the field (Culik *et al.* , 2001; Olesiuk *et al.* , 2002; Johnston, 2002) and laboratory (Kastelein *et al.* , 1995, 1997, 2000) for non-pulse sounds. The results of these studies demonstrate the harbor porpoise are quite sensitive to a wide range of human sounds at very low exposure levels: approximately 90 - 120dB re: 1μPa. However, most of these studies involved acoustic harassment devices (e.g., pingers) in the range of 10 kHz which is 6-7 kHz greater than most industrial sounds, including pile driving. Killer whales Killer whales in the Gulf of Alaska are divided into two ecotypes: resident and transient. Transients, or mammal-eating killer whales, are the only ecotype believed to occur in upper Cook Inlet. Killer whales are more common in lower Cook Inlet (at least 100 sightings from 1975 to 2002), but in the upper Inlet, north of Kalgin Island, sightings are infrequent (18 sightings have been noted from 1976-2003) (Sheldon *et al.* 2003). Most observed killer whale/beluga whale interactions were in the upper Inlet; however, killer whale predation on beluga whales in Cook Inlet appears to be random and does not appear to be an influential factor on beluga distribution (Hobbs *et al.* , 2006). However, a decrease in killer whale seal and sea lion prey in the Gulf of Alaska could result in killer whales moving from the southern portion of the Inlet to the northern portion in search of beluga prey. The hearing of killer whales is well developed and this species exhibits complex underwater communication structure. They have hearing ranges of 0.05 to 100 kHz, which is lower than many other odontocetes. Peak sensitivity is around 15 kHz. Mammal-eating killer whales (i.e. transients) limit their vocal communication and often travel in silence. This is in contrast to the very vocal fish eating (i.e., resident) killer whale pods who are constantly vocalizing. The difference for this behavior is that fish do not possess the advanced hearing capabilities as the target marine mammals, who can hear or eavesdrop on mammal eating killer whale calls and escape from being prey (Deecke *et al.* , 2005). Habitat Knik Arm is comprised of narrow channels flanked by large tidal benches composed of sand, mud, or gravel depending on location. Tides in Cook Inlet are semidiurnal, with two unequal high and low tides per tidal day (tidal day = 24 h 50 min). The mean diurnal tidal range varies from roughly 6 m (19 ft) at Homer to about 9.5 m (30 ft) at Anchorage (Moore *et al.* 2000). Because of Knik Arm's predominantly shallow depths and narrow widths, tides here are greater than in the main body of Cook Inlet. The range of tides at Anchorage is extreme at about 29 feet and the observed extreme low water is 6.4 feet below mean low low water

(MLLW)(KABATA 2007). Maximum current speeds in Knik Arm, observed during spring ebb tide, exceed 7 knots (12 feet/second). These extreme physical characteristics of Knik Arm increase ambient sound level. The habitat directly affected from the Project is the 135 acres of intertidal and subtidal wetlands filled to become useable land and facilitate the bulkhead structure and fendering systems of the dock. In addition, noise will be emitted into the waters surrounding the Port which will lead to some degree of temporary habitat degradation. With respect to habitat analysis, NMFS considered the impact elimination and degradation of this area would have to marine mammals (see Impacts to Habitat). That is, would the elimination and degradation of habitat impact the biological or physical environment to the extent that is would have an impact on marine mammals directly in the form of acoustic harassment, and indirectly, in the form of reducing availability of prey? Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals Marine mammals use sound for vital life functions, and introducing sound into their environment could be disrupting to those behaviors. Sound (hearing and vocalization/ echolocation) serves 4 main functions for odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins). These functions include

(1)providing information about their environment;

(2)communication;

(3)enabling remote detection of prey; and

(4)enabling detection of predators. Sounds and non-acoustic stimuli will be generated and emitted into the aquatic environment by vehicle traffic, vessel operations, roadbed construction, and vibratory and impact pile driving. The distances to which these sounds are audible depend on source levels, ambient noise levels, and sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson *et al.* , 1995). The **Federal Register** notice for the proposed IHA and the EA discuss in detail the potential impacts to marine mammals from exposure to pile driving. The implementation of the Project would result in the loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat used by marine mammals and exposure to loud noise could result in behavioral and mild physiological changes in marine mammals. Based on the activities described in the application, NMFS has determined that only in-water pile driving is likely to result in an adverse affect to marine mammals. Based on the best available science, as described in the EA, marine mammals exposed to pile driving noise at and above NMFS determined harassment thresholds, have the potential to undergo mild to moderate short term behavioral and physiological reactions. Anticipated behavioral reactions of marine mammals include altered headings, fast swimming, changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, and feeding patterns, and changes in vocalizations. Short-term stress response could include increase in stress hormone levels (e.g. norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine). Beluga whales are expected to become accustomed to pile driving noise (Gisiner, 1998); however, they may slightly alter habitat usage so that the middle or west side of Knik Arm, where noise from pile driving would attenuate to baseline background levels, would be used more frequently as a migratory route to the northern feeding grounds. While dredging and fill compaction would also result in noise emittance into the environment, sound levels are not expected to result in harassment of marine mammals. Dredging has been occurring at the Port for decades and marine mammals, specifically beluga whales, have become habituated to this activity as indicated by their observed interaction with dredges and other commercial vessels (NMFS unpubl. data). Fill compaction requires the use of a vibratory pile driver; however, absorption of sound by the fill and sheet pile wall would reduce sound levels below harassment level thresholds. Because Cook Inlet is an already noisy environment (ambient levels around 115-133 dB (Blackwell 2004)), and with habituation likely and the required mitigation measures described below, NMFS believes harassment to marine mammals, including beluga whales, from pile driving will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammals. Several aspects of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near pile driving and to avoid the chance of them being exposed to sound levels which could result in injury or mortality (see Mitigation section). NMFS does not expect Level A harassment to occur. Number of Marine Mammals Affected NMFS has authorized the take, by Level B harassment only, of 34 Cook Inlet beluga whales, 20 harbor seals, 20 harbor porpoises, and 20 killer whales over the course of the 1- year IHA. Because potential harassment to the Cook Inlet beluga whales was a concern, the Port was required, under mitigation in their initial U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, as recommended by NMFS, to obtain three years of sighting data around the Port prior to construction. Data were collected during all months pile driving would take place (April-October) and included information on beluga whale abundance, group size and composition, behavior, presence related to tidal cycle, and use of the area by commercial vessels (Funk *et al.* , 2005, Ramos *et al.* , 2006, Cornick and Kendall 2007). These data were then complied to calculate estimated monthly densities and expected monthly take based on pile driving hours (Table 1). A more detailed derivation of take numbers can be found in the application and EA prepared by NMFS for this action. While the calculated take estimate for beluga whales (21 for both impact and vibratory pile driving combined) is less than those authorized, take numbers were slightly inflated to compensate for natural ecology and behavior of beluga whales (e.g., large group size). Table 1. Calculated expected take from pile driving activities at the Port of Anchorage from July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009. Port of Anchorage Take Table - 2008/2009 IHA Month Impact Hours Vibratory Hours Avg. Whales/hr/km 2 nearshore* Area within 160 dB Impact

(350m)Expected Take (impact) Area within 120 dB Vibratory

(800m)Expected Take (vibratory) April 86 58 0.014 0.192 0.230 1.0048 0.809 May 60 39 0.006 0.192 0.064 1.0048 0.218 June 60 39 0.011 0.192 0.125 1.0048 0.423 July 86 58 0.004 0.192 0.066 1.0048 0.231 August 86 58 0.062 0.192 1.031 1.0048 3.633 September 86 58 0.043 0.192 0.718 1.0048 2.529 October 86 58 0.020 0.192 0.335 1.0048 1.179 Total* 550 368 8 13 *The total number of authorized take is calculated by rounding up each take per month (e.g., a take of 0.230 animals in April is equal to 1 take). Based on low sighting rates of other marine mammals around the Port, the number of other marine mammals that could be harassed from Project activities cannot be derived mathematically. Instead NMFS has estimated take to authorize a small number of takes, relative to the population size, for harbor seals (20), harbor porpoises (20), and killer whales (20). Impacts to Habitat As stated, NMFS considered habitat impacts in terms of marine mammal use and how the Project would affect marine mammal prey availability. The elimination of 135 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to Port expansion would result in habitat loss and changes in this portion of Knik Arm. A new, extended dock face would replace existing acres of shallow slow moving water with deeper faster moving water across a sheer sheet pile face; however, models show current speed would not increase significantly. While these sheltered areas of slower moving water where juvenile fish tend to be more abundant would be eliminated, habitats with similar characteristics exist in other areas of Knik Arm. The clearer water microhabitats in the intertidal area that allow for visual feeding would be reduced but Houghton *et al.* (2005a,b) identified that these patches of clear water are random and also exist in the middle of the Arm. The concrete top deck of the extended dock would shade these naturally turbid waters which could further limit visual feeding opportunities for marine mammal prey; however, as shown in observations during the fish studies conducted at the Port, other waters surrounding the Port provide clear, less turbid waters in which feeding can take place. Otoliths for juvenile Chinook salmon sampled between Cairn Point and Point Woronzof showed that 80-85 percent of the fish were of hatchery origin (interpolated from Table 12 of Houghton *et al.* , 2005a). This suggests that waters in this portion of upper Cook Inlet are very important to the hatchery produced Chinook salmon smolts from Ship Creek. The remaining 15-20 percent of the fish was not of hatchery origin suggesting that the area within the Project footprint also provides important habitat for wild Chinook, likely including fish from other Knik Arm tributaries. However, habitats in other portions of Knik Arm have the same or similar attributes which make them important nursery, rearing, and feeding areas (Houghton *et al.* , 2005a,b). Furthermore, Ship Creek is stocked and would be continually replenished, minimizing impact to prey availability. Due to the natural ecology of the fish in Knik Arm (i.e., using habitats other than those to be filled), mitigation measures set in place by the USACE permit, and the fact that Ship Creek is stocked yearly, abundance and survival rates of fish are expected to be high and therefore availability of those fish as beluga whale prey would not be significantly negatively impacted. Effects on Subsistence Needs Alaska Natives who reside in communities on or near Cook Inlet and some hunters who live in other Alaska towns and villages continue to subsistence harvest beluga whales. Until 1999, subsistence harvest of beluga whales was unregulated, which is believed to be the major reason for the recent beluga whale population decline. Since 1999, mandatory and voluntary moratoriums have been enacted prohibiting or minimizing take of beluga whales for subsistence needs. Since 2001, five beluga whales have been taken with none of those whales taken in 2006 or 2007. Scientists predicted that the beluga whale population would recover after the unregulated hunts ceased and a managed hunt was enacted. While the Cook Inlet beluga population appears to be on the increase since the lowest population estimate in 2006 when the population was estimated at 278 whales, this was only 2 years ago; therefore, a trend in recovery can not be discerned. While NMFS acknowledges that there are factors working against the recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population in a manner scientists have yet to understand, NMFS is confident that, given mitigation, the small amount of harassment that whales could potentially be exposed to from the Project will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of beluga whales for subsistence uses. More information on use of beluga whales for subsistence purposes and proposed management plans can be found in the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NMFS 2007). Comments and Responses On March 18, 2008, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** a notice of a proposed IHA for the Port and MARAD's request to take marine mammals incidental to the Project and requested comments regarding this request (73 FR 14443). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission); the Center for Biological Diversity

(CBD)on behalf of the CBD, Trustees for Alaska, and Cook Inlet Keeper; and the Kenaitze Indian Tribe. The Commission and CBD provided comments on seven major topics:

(1)take numbers;

(2)NMFS negligible impact determination;

(3)specified activities;

(4)cumulative impacts;

(5)mitigation;

(6)ESA requirements; and

(7)NEPA requirements. Because comments provided by the Commission and CBD on these topics were similar, they are addressed here by category. Other comments and those submitted by the Kenaitze Indian Tribe are also addressed here. Take Numbers • The Commission believes that the manner in which takes are distributed among the population could be significant, that is, a single animal harassed 34 times could have different impacts than if 34 animals were harassed one time; • CBD states that NMFS' “small numbers” definition is conflated with “negligible impact” and that NMFS conducts its analysis according to this “invalid standard”; CBD argues that “the Project would expose 12-14% of the population of Cook Inlet beluga whales (identified as 278 animals) to noise which could cause harassment and this level of take could not be considered small”; • “NMFS's estimate that 34 belugas may be harassed under the requested IHA in the first year is based on the assumption that sounds below 160 dB re 1 microPa

(rms)do not constitute harassment for any cetacean"; “for example, [in a recent IHA for oil and gas exploration,] NMFS imposed a 120 dB safety zone for aggregations of bowhead whales based on its finding that 'bowhead whales apparently show some avoidance in areas of seismic sounds at levels lower than 120 dB'"; and NMFS acknowledged in an IHA for the National Science Foundation “that belugas can be displaced at distances of up to 20 km from a sound source” and • “given louder sources of noise are planned in subsequent years of the Project, over the life of the proposed regulations well over half and perhaps the entire beluga population is likely to be exposed to harassment level sounds.” *Response:* Based on beluga behavior and group dynamics, NMFS does not believe that either of the extremes provided by the Commission are likely to occur. Instead, it is probable that takes will be distributed somewhat evenly among exposed individuals with the possibility that some individuals may be taken slightly fewer or more times than others. Beluga whales are not all individually identifiable and it is impossible to determine exactly how many times each and every individual is potentially harassed. However, due to beluga whale coloration disparities among different age classes, observers can identify how many times adults, juveniles, and calves are around the Port and have entered into the harassment zones. NMFS no longer relies on its regulatory definition, which was found to be invalid by a U.S. District Court. Instead, NMFS addresses “small numbers” in terms of relative to the species or stock size. CBD's argument that NMFS can not make a small numbers determination since 12 percent of the population could be taken is faulty as CBD uses an outdated Cook Inlet beluga whale population estimate (i.e., 278) when the current population estimate is actually 375 whales. Therefore, 9 percent of the population could potentially be harassed under the IHA, which is small relative to the population size. CBD is also incorrect in the statement that the estimate of the number of beluga whales authorized to be taken was derived based on the assumption that exposure to sounds at or above 160 dB re 1 micro Pascal constitute a “take.” NMFS estimated take numbers based on potential exposure to both pulse (i.e., impact pile driving) and continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) noise, which is discussed thoroughly in both the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice (73 FR 14443) and the Port's application. NMFS has implemented a 160 dB and 120 dB re 1 micro Pascal harassment zone for impact and vibratory pile driving, respectively. NMFS used three years of monitoring data to predict beluga whale density around the Port and then estimated potential take based on both the 160 dB and 120 dB re 1 micro Pascal isopleths. A detailed description of how take was mathematically estimated can be found in the EA and the application. NMFS slightly inflated the number of whales authorized to be taken to account for realistic occurrences such as large groups; therefore, CBD is incorrect is stating the take numbers were underestimated. In referring to NMFS' IHA that acknowledged displacement of beluga whales up to 20 km from the sound source, CBD fails to consider the science of sound and its propagation characteristics underwater (e.g., sound type, source level, water depth, and other factors contributing to sound propagation and marine mammal harassment potential. Therefore, their arguments regarding impacts to marine mammals from noise as well as Level A harassment potential are flawed and unsupported. The NSF report CBD refers to in its comments concerns beluga whale responses to seismic surveys employing large moving ships operating an 8 airgun array configured as a four-G gun cluster with a total discharge volume of 840 in3 and a four Bolt airgun cluster with a total discharge volume of 2000 in3. The source output from that array was from 246 253 dB re 1 micro Pascal and Level B harassment sounds were expected to range from 4-7 kms. To compare potential reactions from that survey, or other seismic surveys, to stationary pile driving, which does not have a sound source level close to seismic survey output, is erroneous. NMFS is unaware where the CBD obtained information that “louder sources of noise are planned in subsequent years of the project”. The Port has not indicated that louder sound would be emitted into the environment in subsequent years. In fact, the Port has identified that impact pile driving hours will likely be reduced in subsequent years and be replaced by vibratory pile driving; therefore, sound levels will actually likely be reduced in future years as sound source level using an impact hammer is louder than a vibratory hammer. The Port must employ impact pile driving to obtain depths at which vibratory methods are not possible and once the piles are at this depth they will switch to vibratory methods. Negligible Impact • The Commission and CBD both argue that NMFS can not make a negligible impact determination because the “baseline status” of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population is “tenuous” and “is already having a more than negligible impact on this stock”; • The Commission argues that because this population of beluga whales is “dangerously low”, “any increase in the level of disturbance experience by beluga whales in an important feeding area - regardless of how small the increase may be in and of itself- would have more than a negligible impact on the population of chances of recovery”; • CBD argues that NMFS has no scientific justification for its Level A harassment thresholds, citing to two marine mammal stranding events where seismic surveys were occurring and where received sound levels “were likely lower than 180 dB.” *Response:* NMFS' responsibility under section 101(a)(5)(d) of the MMPA is to authorize, subject to conditions as the Secretary may specify, the incidental but not intentional taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock by US citizens while engaging in a specified activity should the Secretary find, among other things, that such harassment will have a negligible impact on such species or sock. If such determination is made, there is no requirement that NMFS must deny an authorization request simply because the population is endangered or declining. NMFS acknowledges that the current status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale is below optimal levels, as it has been proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, and that a variety of factors, including a previously unregulated subsistence harvest, coastal development, and introduction of anthropogenic noise into their environment, have been identified as potential factors contributing to the recent population decline, although no one factor has been identified as the sole cause. However, to comply with the MMPA and implementing regulations, NMFS is required to evaluate specific activities in relation to a species status, however small it may be, and make a finding as to whether the activity will have a negligible impact on that species or stock. Incidental take authorizations are not denied simply because a species is listed, proposed to be listed, or the population is in a deleterious state. NMFS determined, after careful review of the Project construction activities, beluga whale and fish monitoring studies, physical habitat models, background and pile driving acoustic studies, and a comprehensive review of literature regarding marine mammals and noise, that the Project will not result in an increased disturbance to marine mammals or their habitat such that would result in more than a negligible impact to the stock. Justification for these determinations can be found throughout Chapter 4 of the EA prepared by NMFS for this action. NMFS has published several times in **Federal Register** notices that the evidence linking marine mammal strandings and seismic surveys remains tenuous at best (e.g., 73 FR 40512, July 15, 2008). No marine mammal strandings in the Arctic have been associated with exposure to seismic activity. Further, CBD provides no support for its assertion that the marine mammals involved in the referenced stranding events were exposed to sounds lower than 180 dB. Finally, this IHA does not involve authorization of harassment related to seismic activities. As explained in response to comments included in the “take numbers” category above, direct comparison of expected marine mammal reactions to exposure from pile driving to seismic surveys would be difficult to make. Based on the best available scientific literature investigating reactions of marine mammals to anthropogenically introduced sound and obtainable, unpublished data, anticipated reactions of beluga whales to pile driving sound are expected to be short term and behavioral and/or physiological (i.e., stress response) in nature. Mild to moderate behavioral reactions of marine mammals, including beluga whales, could involve short-term altered headings, fast swimming, changes in dive, surfacing, respiration, and feeding patterns, and changes in vocalization frequency and strength. As pile driving continues throughout the season and over the years, beluga whales are expected to habituate to these sounds as they have done for ship traffic. Further, given that travel is the primary behavior in the action area and that the west side of Knik Arm is approximately 4,170 m directly across from the Port, the width of the Arm marine mammals would be able to utilize where sound propagation from pile driving is below Level B harassment levels would be 3,820 m and 3,370 m for impact and vibratory pile driving, respectively. Based on these factors, and given that strict mitigation would be set in place (see Mitigation section), NMFS has made a finding that such activities will have a negligible impact on the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. Specified Activities • Comments were received regarding NMFS obligation to specify all activities which could potentially result in harassment to marine mammals, specifically beluga whales. *Response:* NMFS considered all activities identified as components of the Project and if each of the activities would result in harassment to marine mammals. Activities considered were:

(1)pile driving,

(2)dredging,

(3)fill compaction, and

(4)habitat destruction in terms of reducing availability of prey to marine mammals. As stated, pile driving is the only activity considered to result in potential harassment of marine mammals. While NMFS acknowledges that dredging releases sound into the environment, dredging has been occurring in the area for decades and beluga whales that utilize the area around the Port are most likely habituated to dredging operations as they have been seen interacting with these vessels on their own accord. Vibratory driving is required for fill compaction; however, the low source level of the hammer, combined with the fill and steel wall absorption capabilities, will reduce much of the sound levels below NMFS harassment threshold levels. Finally, based on habitat attributes, modeling studies, and required mitigation that the Port would abide by under their USACE permit, NMFS determined that fill and noise from pile driving would not result in decreased availability of prey for marine mammals. Justification for these determinations can be found in the EA. The IHA also contains a mitigation measure that restricts dredging and all heavy machinery operations if an animal comes within 50 m of the equipment to avoid the small chance of physical injury. Mitigation • Comments argue that the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice mentions several types of activities that may take marine mammals, nevertheless, the notice only proposed mitigation measures related to pile driving and any IHA and needs to address mitigation measures for every type of activity that might result in a take; • “NMFS seems to be accepting as a given that only the very limited mitigation measures proposed by the POA will be applied”; and • “NMFS could require that pile driving only be allowed during the winter months when beluga whales are less likely to be in the area.” *Response:* According to the MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii), an IHA shall prescribe, where applicable, permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat. NMFS has discretion in prescribing appropriate mitigation for a specified activity. As stated in response to comment 3, NMFS does not identify activities other than pile driving as potentially resulting in acoustic-based harassment to marine mammals; in addition NMFS also implemented a 50 m safety shut down when marine mammals approach heavy machinery to prevent injury. The Port's complete application was a result of numerous discussions with NMFS and therefore already incorporated many of NMFS suggested mitigation measures. In addition, NMFS has imposed additional mitigation measures (e.g., calf shut down) to minimize impacts from pile driving. A detailed list of these mitigation measures can be found in this notice and Chapter 4 of the EA. CBD's comments do not acknowledge all mitigation measures identified in the proposed IHA **Federal Register** notice. NMFS also notes that discussion with the Port about pile driving during winter, a the period of lowest habitat use around the Port by beluga whales, occurred, but due to dangerous drifting ice conditions and frozen ground, it is not practicable to carry out pile driving in winter. Cumulative Impacts • Both the Commission and CBD claim that the Port's application is largely confined to looking at the immediate effects of construction and NMFS' has a responsibility to responsibility to consider cumulative impacts of the Project. The CBD states “ NMFS must consider these effects together with all other activities that affect these species, stocks and local populations, other anthropogenic risk factors such as oil and gas and other industrial development, climate change, and the cumulative effect of these activities over time.” For example, the Commission links dredging and other Port development activities to increased sedimentation to which organic chemical may be absorbed by beluga whale prey and suggests it would be important to monitor contaminant availability, exposure, effects, and levels in the environment. *Response:* Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA allows citizens of the United States to take by harassment, small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if NMFS is able to make certain findings. NMFS must issue an incidental harassment authorization if the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. Under the MMPA, NMFS cannot issue an IHA if a negligible impact determination is not made for the specified activity. Pursuant to NEPA, NMFS is required to analyze the potential environmental effects of its actions. As part of the NEPA analysis (e.g., an EIS or EA), NMFS is required to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action along with a reasonable range of alternatives, including the proposed action. To comply with NEPA, NMFS investigated the potential for cumulative impacts in its EA. NMFS gave careful consideration to a number of issues and sources of information and assessed the cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in upper Cook Inlet and the effects of climate change in the context of the specified activity and impacts to marine mammals. NMFS recognizes that climate change is a concern for the sustainability of the entire Arctic ecosystem and has reviewed the available literature and stock assessment reports to support its negligible impact determination and finding of no significant impact. While NMFS acknowledges there is some uncertainty in the specific factors which have inhibited the Cook Inlet beluga whale population recovery, NMFS has determined that, via animals' natural reactions to avoidance of and habituation to loud sounds, the maintenance of a harassment free migration route to prime feeding ground, and comprehensive mitigation set in place for the Project, issuance of an IHA will result in a negligible impact to marine mammals. Any future coastal development projects, oil/gas and alternative energy exploration, or extraction activities in Arctic waters and permit reviews would be subject to similar analyses to determine how they may individually and cumulatively affect marine mammals. The Port of Anchorage is a highly industrialized area and has been in operation for decades. Maintenance of the Port requires routine dredging. Despite dredging and other Port activities, to date analyses of Cook Inlet beluga samples have found contaminant loads lower or equal to the other Alaska beluga whale populations (with the exception of copper levels, for which the toxicological implications are unknown) (Becker, 2000). Based on these samples, there is no evidence that dredging and Port activities will result in a higher contaminant risk. ESA Requirements • Both the Commission and CBD provided comments concerning NMFS requirements, under the ESA, to initiate a conference under Section 7 and its implementing regulations and that the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Cook Inlet beluga whales, and • The CBD argues that NMFS should refrain from issuing any take authorization until the ESA listing process is complete and consultation under Section 7 is undertaken. *Response:* Both the Commission and CBD hint that a jeopardy conclusion would be reached if a conference opinion or Section 7 consultation was carried out; however, they provided no analysis to justify this statement. The ESA provides some protection for species which are proposed, but not yet listed, to be threatened or endangered. Section 7(a)(4) and 50 CFR 402.10 require an action agency to “confer” with the Secretary when their actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under Section 4. The statute does not require a conference simply if the affected species is proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered, only if such action is likely to jeopardize. During the public comment period for the issuance of the USACE permit, NMFS AKR provided numerous comments and suggested, among other things, beluga whale mitigation measures. The USACE incorporated these suggested measures into their permit and therefore the NMFS AKR concurred that the action of the USACE (i.e., authorization to carry out Port construction activities) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whale; therefore a conference opinion was not deemed necessary. Because the impacts associated with NMFS' IHA are part of those already considered by the USACE (and NMFS has required additional mitigation in its IHA), NMFS OPR has determined that issuance of an IHA is also not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whale. If listed, Section 7 consultation may be required for this action and future rulemaking. NEPA Requirements • The MMC takes issue with NMFS' preliminary negligible impact determination in its proposed IHA FR, given the fact that NMFS had indicated it was going to prepare its own EA because additional analysis was needed over and above the Port's and MARAD's EA. MMC believes this is inconsistent with NEPA; • The CBD argues that NMFS must make the EA available for public comment, an EIS should have been prepared, and direct and indirect impacts from the Project should be analyzed in an EIS; and • The CBD states that the proposed IHA will likely affect Steller sea lions; therefore, a Section 7 consultation must be initiated. *Response:* NMFS' MMPA preliminary negligible impact determination was based on the Port's MMPA IHA application, which included NMFS' recommended mitigation from preliminary discussions; NMFS' review of that application for completeness; supplemental information from the Port; and discussions with NMFS' AKR. The information from these sources was sufficient for NMFS to make its preliminary determination of negligible impact under the MMPA. With respect to NMFS' NEPA responsibilities, NMFS determined additional NEPA analyses were necessary beyond the Port's EA; however, there is no requirement that NMFS complete an EA at the time it proposes its action. NMFS has prepared its EA and made a Finding of No Significant Impact. Neither NEPA nor the CEQ regulations explicitly require circulation of a draft EA for public comment prior to finalizing the EA. The federal courts have upheld this conclusion, and in one recent case the Ninth Circuit squarely addressed the question of public involvement in the development of an EA. In *Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development* v. *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that the circulation of a draft EA is not required in every case; rather, federal agencies should strive to involve the public in the decision-making process by providing as much environmental information as is practicable prior to completion of the EA so that the public has a sufficient opportunity to weigh in on issues pertinent to the agency's decision-making process. In the case of the Port's MMPA IHA issuance, NMFS involved the public in the decision-making process by publishing its notice of a proposed IHA for a 30-day notice and comment period and also notified the public of the availability of the Port's MMPA application and other NEPA documents written for the Project and the Knik Arm Crossing (73 FR 14443, March 18, 2008). The IHA application and FR notice contained information relating to the project and specifically requested information from the public. For example, the application and FR notice includes a project description, its location, environmental matters such as species and habitat to be affected by project construction, and measures designed to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. NMFS also incorporated, where appropriate, additional measures to reduce impacts to marine mammals resulting from the Project. The EA for this action is available at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications* . While Steller sea lions are commonly seen in Lower Cook Inlet; their presence in upper Cook Inlet is rare. There have been only two opportunistic sightings of Steller sea lions in upper Cook Inlet since 1999 (Barbara Mahoney, email correspondence, June 20, 2008). Both sightings, comprising a total of four individuals, were near the mouth of the Susitna River. No Steller sea lions sightings have been reported around the Port or elsewhere in Knik Arm. As such, NMFS believes its issuance of the IHA will have no effect on Steller sea lions. The following comments were provided by the Kenaitze Indian Tribe: • “We are opposed to the issuance of a one-year Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Port of Anchorage. The Cook Inlet is critical habitat for marine mammals, specifically beluga whales, harbor porpoise, killer whales, and harbor seals. Kenaitze and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC) have requested the beluga be placed on the ESA in an effort to save this endangered species. CIMMC, which comprise of the seven tribes of the Cook Inlet, along with the Eskimo whalers who reside in the Cook Inlet, are restricted to one and a half beluga per year, i.e., one beluga whale one year and two beluga whales the next year. Our use does not comprise of want and waste”; • “The Kenaitze Indian Tribe questions the feasibility of the port of Anchorage expansion project, because there is a deep-water port in Whittier that does not have the silting problems as the Cook Inlet's Port of Anchorage. The deep-water port of Whittier has easy access to Anchorage via the Rail Road and/or tunnel access for trucking goods. The Port of Anchorage's estimated cost of construction is $700,000, with no guarantees that it will not silt up again and cause more problems and money. During World War II the engineer built the Whittier Port because they also recognized the problems that would be incurred by building a port in Anchorage and because Whittier is close and accessible to Anchorage;” and • “The damage that will be incurred to the marine mammals and environment is not worth the expense of the proposed re-construction of the Port of Anchorage.” *Response:* NMFS acknowledges the comments provided by the Kenaitze Indian Tribe; however, these comments are outside the scope of the NMFS jurisdiction when considering issuance of an incidental take authorization. Impacts to the availability of Cook Inlet beluga whales for subsistence hunting are addressed in this FR notice and the EA prepared for issuance of the Port's IHA. NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals, including beluga whales, for taking for subsistence uses. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures outlined in the IHA application and proposed **Federal Register** notice were a result of numerous discussions between the applicants, the USACE, and NMFS. In addition, during NMFS' analysis of the proposed action, it implemented additional measures to further ensure that the Project would not result in more than a negligible impact to Cook Inlet beluga whales. Sound deterrent/minimization techniques such as bubble curtains were considered for mitigation; however, due to the strong current in Knik Arm (up to 11.2ft (3.4 m)/sec) these techniques would be inefficient. The Port has stated that they will work with pile driving contractors to learn of and implement new sound attenuation minimization techniques that would be applicable to the harsh Knik Arm environment. If such technology becomes available, NMFS may re-evaluate the potential impacts to marine mammals and adjust take numbers and mitigation accordingly, and consider these measures for future requests for incidental take authorizations. The following mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are required under the IHA: Scheduling of construction activities during low use period of beluga whales around the Port- Tidal Restrictions As discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA, tides have been shown to be an important physical characteristic in determining beluga movement within Knik Arm. Most beluga whales are expected to be foraging well north of the Port during the flood and high tide. However, these northern areas are exposed during the ebb and low tide; therefore, animals move south toward Eagle Bay and sometimes as far south as the Knik Arm entrance to avoid being stranded on mudflats. Based on the beluga whale monitoring studies conducted at the Port since 2005, beluga whale sightings often varied significantly with tide height at and around the Port (Funk *et al.* , 2005, Ramos *et al.* , 2005, Markowitz and McGuire, 2007). Beluga whales were most often sighted during the period around low tide and as the tide flooded, beluga whales typically moved into the upper reaches of the Arm. Opportunistic sighting data also support that highest beluga whale use near the Port is around low tide (NMFS, unpubl. data). Due to this tidally influenced habitat use, impact pile driving, excluding work when the entire pile is out of the water due to shoreline elevation or tidal stage, shall not occur within two hours of either side of each low tide (i.e., from two hours before low tide until two hours after low tide). For example, if low tide is at 1 p.m., impact pile driving will not occur from 11 am to 3 pm. Vibratory pile driving will be allowed to commence/continue during this time because its characteristics (continuous sound type and lower source level) are expected to elicit less overt behavioral reactions. Establishment of safety zones and shut-down requirements NMFS acknowledges that shut-down of reduced energy vibratory pile driving during the “stabbing” phase, as described in Chapter 1 of the EA, of sheet pile installation may not be possible due to concerns the sheet pile may break free and result in a safety and navigational hazard. Therefore, the following shut-down requirements apply to all pile driving except during the “stabbing” phase of the installation process. Safety Zones In October, 2007, the Port contracted an outside company to determine reliable estimates of distances for 190 (pinniped injury threshold), 180 (cetacean injury threshold), 160 (impact pile driving behavioral harassment threshold) and 120 dB (vibratory pile driving behavioral harassment threshold) isopleths from impact and vibratory pile driving. From this study, it has been determined that these isopleth distances are 10, 20, 350, and 800 m, respectively. Although the 190 and 180dB isopleths are within 20m for both types of pile driving, NMFS is establishing a conservative 200m mandatory shut-down safety zone which would require the Port to shut-down anytime a marine mammal enters this zone. Shut-Down for Large Groups To reduce the chance of the Port reaching or exceeding authorized take and to minimize harassment to beluga whales, if a group of more than five beluga whales is sighted within the relevant Level B harassment isopleth, shut-down is required. Shut-down for Calves Marine mammal calves are likely more susceptible to loud anthropogenic noise than juveniles or adults; therefore, presence of calves within the harassment isopleths will require shut-down. If a calf is sighted approaching a harassment zone, any type of pile driving will cease and not be resumed until the calf is confirmed to be out of the harassment zone and on a path away from such zone. If a calf or the group with a calf is not re-sighted within 15 minutes, pile driving may resume. Heavy machinery shut-downs For other in-water heavy machinery operations other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 50 m of operations will cease and vessels will slow to a reduced speed while still maintaining control of the vessel and safe working conditions. Such operations include Port operated water based dump-scows (barges capable of discharging material through the bottom), standard barges, tug boats to position and move barges, barge mounted hydraulic excavators or clamshell equipment used to place or remove material. Exceedence of Take If maximum authorized take is reached or exceeded for the year, any beluga entering into the Level B harassment isopleths will trigger mandatory shut-down. Use of Impact Pile Driving In-water piles will be driven with a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible (i.e., until a desired depth is achieved or to refusal) prior to using an impact hammer. Soft start to pile driving activities A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before pile driving reaches full energy. The soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, contractors will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3 strike sets (NMFS, 2003). If any marine mammal is sighted within the 200 m safety zone prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, the hammer operator (or other authorized individual) will delay pile-driving until the animal has moved outside the 200 m safety zone. Furthermore, if any marine mammal is sighted within a Level B harassment zone prior to pile driving, operations will be delayed until the animals move outside the zone in order to avoid take exceedence. Pile-driving will resume only after a qualified observer determines that the marine mammal has moved outside the 200m safety or Level B harassment zone, or after 15 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the safety zone. In-water pile driving weather delays Adequate visibility is essential to beluga whale monitoring and determining take numbers. Pile driving will not occur when weather conditions restrict clear, visible detection of all waters within the Level B harassment zones or 200 m safety zone. Such conditions that can impair sightability and require in-water pile driving delays include, but are not limited to, fog and a rough sea state. Notification of Commencement and Marine Mammal Sightings The Port shall formally notify the NMFS AKR and OPR prior to the seasonal commencement of pile driving and would provide weekly monitoring reports once pile driving begins. The Port shall establish a long-term, formalized marine-mammal sighting and notification procedure for all Port users, visitors, tenants, or contractors prior to and after construction activities. The notification procedure shall clearly identify roles and responsibilities for reporting all marine mammal sightings. The Port will forward documentation of all reported marine mammal sightings to the NMFS. Public Outreach The Port will erect and maintain whale-notification signage in the waterfront viewing areas near the Ship Creek Public Boat Launch and within the secured Port entrance that is visible to all Port users. This signage will provide information on the beluga whale and notification procedures for reporting beluga whale sightings to the NMFS. The Port will consult with the NMFS to establish the signage criteria. Monitoring Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted by trained, dedicated observers at the Port during all times in-water pile driving is taking place and thirty minutes before pile driving commences to ensure no marine mammals are within the Level B harassment or shut down zones. All marine mammal sightings will be documented on NMFS approved marine mammal sighting sheets. Marine Mammal Monitoring Monitoring for marine mammals will take place concurrent with all pile driving activities and 30 minutes prior to pile driving commencement. One to two trained observer(s) will be placed at the Port at the best advantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and will implement shut-down/delay procedures when applicable. The observer(s) will have no other construction related tasks while conducting monitoring. Each observer will be properly trained in marine mammal species detection, identification and distance estimation and will be equipped with binoculars. At time of each sighting, the pile hammer operator must be immediately notified that there are beluga whales in the area, their location and direction of travel, and if shut-down is necessary. Prior to the start of seasonal pile driving activities, the Port will require construction supervisors and crews, the marine mammal monitoring team, the acoustical monitoring team (described below), and all project managers to attend a briefing on responsibilities of each party, defining chains of command, discussing communication procedures, providing overview of monitoring purposes, and reviewing operational procedures regarding beluga whales. During in-water construction activities, the Port shall ensure that construction contractors delegate supervisory responsibility to include on-site construction personnel to observe, record, and report marine mammal sightings and response actions taken, to include shut-down or delay. In addition to the Port's trained marine mammal observers responsible for monitoring the harassment zones and calling for shut-down, an independent beluga whale monitoring team, consisting of one to two land based observers, shall report on

(1)the frequency at which beluga whales are present in the project footprint;

(2)habitat use, behavior, and group composition near the Port and correlate those data with construction activities; and

(3)observed reactions of beluga whales in terms of behavior and movement during each sighting. It is likely that these observers will monitor for beluga whales 8 hours per day/ 4 days per week but scheduling may change. These observers will work in collaboration with the Port to immediately communicate any presence of beluga whales or other marine mammals in the area prior to or during pile driving. The Port will keep this monitoring team informed of all schedules for that day (e.g., beginning vibratory pile driving at 0900 for 2 hours) and any changes throughout the day. Acoustic Monitoring The Port will carry out a one-time acoustic monitoring study upon commencement of seasonal in-water pile driving. This study will confirm or identify harassment isopleths for all types of piles used, including open-cell sheet piles and 36-inch steel piles, and sound propagation levels during the “stabbing” process, as this phase operates at reduced energy. The acoustic study proposal shall be approved by NMFS prior to the start of seasonal in-water pile driving. In addition, the Port will also install hydrophones (or employ other effective methodologies to the maximum extent possible) necessary to detect and localize passing whales and to determine the proportion of beluga whales missed from visual surveys. This study will be coordinated with the concurrent beluga whale monitoring program to correlate construction and operationally generated noise exposures with beluga whale presence, absence, and any altered behavior observed during construction and operations. Reporting The Port is responsible for submitting monthly marine mammal monitoring reports that include all Port observer marine mammal sightings sheets from the previous month. The sighting sheets have been approved by NMFS and require the following details, if able to be determined: group size, group composition (i.e., adult, juvenile, calf); behavior, location at time of first sighting and last sighting; time of day first sighted, time last sighted; approach distance to pile driving hammer; and note if shut-down/delay occurred and for how long. If shut-down or delay is not implemented, an explanation of why will be provided (e.g., outside of harassment zone, entered harassment zone but shut-down restriction requirements not met (e.g., no beluga whale calves, small group, “stabbing” phase). In addition, the report will note what type of pile driving and other activities were occurring at and during time of each sighting and location of each observer. The monthly report, due to NMFS OPR and AKR no later than the 5th of each month, will include all sighting sheets from the previous month. The one-time acoustic monitoring study report will be due to NMFS 45 days from completion of the sound study. The independent beluga whale monitoring team shall supply their monthly reports to NMFS; however, a timeframe for submitting these reports is not specified. The independent beluga whale monitoring team will submit their reports to NMFS as they are prepared. Endangered Species Act A Section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required for the proposed action as no endangered or threatened marine mammals or other listed species occur within the Project area; therefore, none will be affected by the proposed action. However, NMFS has proposed to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock as an endangered under the MMPA. The ESA provides some protection for species which are proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered. Section 7(a)(4) requires an action agency to “conference” with NMFS when its action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing. NMFS AKR provided numerous comments and mitigation suggestions to the USACE regarding issuance of permit POA-2003-502-N which allows the Port to undertake Project activities. The NMFS AKR concurred with the USACE decision, as described in their EA, that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of beluga whales; therefore, a conference opinion was not necessary. Because the impacts associated with the MMPA IHA are part of those already considered by the USACE and AKR, and this IHA imposes additional mitigation, NMFS OPR has determined that issuance of this IHA, which authorizes harassment to marine mammals, would also not jeopardize the continued existence of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock; therefore, a conference is not necessary. NMFS notes that the determination on listing the Cook Inlet beluga whale is scheduled to be made by October 20, 2008 (73 FR 21578, April 22, 2008). If listed, consultation may be required for this action. National Environmental Policy Act NMFS has, through NOAA Administrative Order

(NAO)216-6, established agency procedures for complying with NEPA and the implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality. While the Port and MARAD and the USACE developed EAs identifying impacts to the affected human environment from the Project, NMFS also prepared its own EA. This EA focuses on potential impacts to marine mammals from the Project. This EA supports NMFS' determination that the Project, alone and in combination with other activities, will not have a significant impact of the affected environment. Conclusions NMFS has issued an IHA to the Port and MARAD for the take of marine mammals incidental to the Port's Marine Terminal Redevelopment Project over a one-year period. The issuance of this IHA is contingent upon adherence to the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. NMFS has determined that pile driving could potentially result in harassment to marine mammals but such harassment will have a negligible impact on affected marine mammals and stocks. Therefore NMFS has authorized the taking of 34 beluga whales, 20 harbor seals, 20 harbor porpoises, and 20 killer whales. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species to avoid the resultant acoustic stimuli, when the natural reaction of marine mammals to loud sound, the already noisy background noise level of Knik Arm, habituation of beluga whales, and the required mitigation and monitoring are taken into consideration, NMFS does expect any long-term, significant alterations to marine mammal behavior that could impact vital life functions or decrease reproduction rates. Mitigation measures set forth in the USACE permit will minimize impact to habitat and therefore the effect on availability of prey for marine mammals. The activity will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence hunting. Mitigation measures are set in place to ensure no injury or mortality would occur. A conservative injury safety zone, shut down requirements, and soft-starts methods, in combination with diligent monitoring, will minimize adverse impacts. Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the Port of Anchorage and the U.S. Department Maritime Administration, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: July 15, 2008. James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-16489 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Missile Defense Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense to provide the Department of Defense and the Director, Missile Defense Agency independent advice and recommendations on all matters relating to missile defense, including system development, technology, program maturity and readiness of configurations of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The Committee, in accomplishing its mission:

(a)Conducted an assessment of the MDA's Capabilities-Based Acquisition approach;

(b)made recommendations in the areas of Approach, Transition to Production and Sustainment, Block Names, and MDA-Managed Systems;

(c)assessed the U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities against a certain potential level of threat; and

(d)set forth recommendation in the areas of Deterrence, Research and Development, and Combatant Commands and Services. The Committee shall be composed of not more than 10 members, who are distinguished authorities in the field of national defense policy, acquisition and technical areas relating to Ballistic Missile Defense System Programs. Committee members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not federal officers or employees, shall be appointed as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109 and with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, shall serve without compensation, unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall renew the appointments of these Special Government Employees on an annual basis. The Committee shall select the Chairperson from the total Committee membership. The Committee shall be authorized to establish subcommittees, as necessary and consistent with its mission, and these subcommittees or working groups shall operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, and other appropriate federal regulations. Such subcommittees or workgroups shall not work independently of the chartered Committee, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees or workgroups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Committee nor can they report directly to the Department of Defense or any federal officers or employees who are not Committee members. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee shall meet at the call of the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Committee's chairperson. The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Designated Federal Officer or duly appointed Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend all committee meetings and subcommittee meetings. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Missile Defense Advisory Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Missile Defense Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16412 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Board of Visitors Meeting AGENCY: Defense Acquisition University, DoD. ACTION: Board of visitors meeting. SUMMARY: The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University

(DAU)Board of Visitors

(BoV)will be held at Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest. DATES: July 24, 2008 from 0900-1400. ADDRESSES: Packard Conference Center, Defense Acquisition University, Bldg. 184, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Patricia Cizmadia at 703-805-5133. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Patricia Cizmadia at 703-805-5133. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16414 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD. ACTION: Meeting notice. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing. DATES: Wednesday, August 21, 2008 (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and Thursday, August 22, 2008 (8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.). ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Rochester, 125 East Main Street, Rochester, NY 14604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane Arabian,

(703)697-9271. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-pencil enlistment tests. *Agenda:* The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test development timelines and planned research for the next three years. In addition, the recently completed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation results for new test forms will be presented to the Committee for their review and implementation recommendations. *Public's Accessibility to the Meeting:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. *Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact:* Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone

(703)697-9271. Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number above no later than August 8, 2008. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16418 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness); DoD. ACTION: Committee meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 41 CFR 102-3.150, announcement is made of the following committee meeting of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (hereafter referred to as the Task Force). DATES: August 11, 2008 through August 15, 2008 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). ADDRESSES: Embassy Suites Alexandria—Old Town, Windsor East, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA 22314. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Col Jackson-Chandler, Designated Federal Officer, Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, 2850 Eisenhower Ave, Suite 100, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Telephone:

(703)325-6640, DSN# 221, Fax:

(703)325-6710/6711, E-mail: *cora.chandler@wso.whs.mil.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* The purpose of this open meeting is to obtain information related to the Task Force's congressionally mandated task to examine matters related to sexual assault in the military services through briefings from the Department of Defense

(DoD)experts, and DoD agencies; the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Justice; the Alliance for National Defense and the Law Office of Mr. Charles Gittins. *Agenda:* Monday, Aug 11, 2008 Day 1 8 a.m.-8:15 a.m. Opening Remarks Co-Chairs. 8:15 a.m.-9:15 a.m. U.S. Navy Briefing Mr. Paul Finch. Sexual Assault Program Training Cultural Sensitivity/Competency 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m.-11:30 p.m. SAPR & VA Program Mr. Paul Finch. Medical Mental Health Pastoral Care Legal Law Enforcement/Investigations 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Violence Against Women Honorable Diane Stuart, Former Department of Justice. 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Discussion of Site Ms. Lysbeth Spence. Visit Focus Ms. Anita Boyd, SAPR Analyst. Group Questions 2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Break 2:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Travel Schedule Tom Cuthbert, Senior Policy Advisor. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap Up Lonnie Weiss, Facilitator. Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 Day 2 8 a.m. -9 a.m. National Guard Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Program Overview Mr. Kevin Crowley, Deputy Manpower & Personnel Directorate. 9 a.m.-10 a.m. Military Criminal Justice Mr. Robert Reed, Associate, Deputy General Counsel. 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m.-12 p.m. U.S. Air Force Briefing Ms. Charlene Bradley, Asst. Deputy for Force Management Integration. Sexual Assault Program Training Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. Cultural Sensitivity/Competency 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Lunch 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. U.S. Air Force Briefing Continued: Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. SAPR & VA Program Medical Mental Health Pastoral Care Legal Law Enforcement/Investigations 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap Up Ms. Debbie Gray, SAPR Analyst. Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 Day 3 8 a.m.-9 a.m. Alliance for National Defense Ms. Sherry de Vries, Vice President. 9 a.m.-10 a.m. Veterans Affairs Dept of Veterans Affairs. Women's Issues 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m.-12 p.m. U.S. Army Briefing Ms. Carolyn Collins, Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Program Manager. Sexual Assault Program Training Cultural Sensitivity/Competency 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Lunch 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. U.S. Army Briefing Continued: SAPR & VA Program Mr. Richard Myer. Medical LTC

(P)Murray, MEDCOM. Mental Health Ms. Hubert, MEDCOM. Pastoral Care Chap. Strohn (tentative). Legal Mr. Cosgrove, OTJAG. Law Enforcement/Investigations Mr. Surian, CID. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap Up Ms. Debbie Gray, SAPR Analyst. Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 Day 4 8 a.m.-9 a.m. Defense Incident Based Mr. John Autrey. Reporting System (DIBRS) 9 a.m.-10 a.m. Defense Attorney Mr. Charles Gittins, The Law Office of Charles Gittins. 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m.-12 p.m. U.S. Marine Corps Briefing Mr. Ray Bruneau, Section, Head SAPRO. Sexual Assault Program Training Cultural Sensitivity/Competency 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Lunch 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. U.S. Marine Corps Briefing Continued: Mr. Ray Bruneau, Section Head SAPRO. SAPR & VA Program Medical Mental Health Pastoral Care Legal Law Enforcement/Investigations 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap Up Ms. Debbie Gray, SAPR Analyst. Friday, Aug 15, 2008 Day 5 8 a.m.-10 a.m. Executive Level Focus Mr. Paul Cook. Group Training Ms. Lindsay Rock, Defense Manpower Data Center. 10 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m. 2006 Gender Relations Ms. Rachel Lipari, Defense Manpower Data Center. Survey 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Lunch 12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m. SAPR Programs: Oversight Dr. Kaye Whitley, Director OSD SAPRO. Training OSD SAPRO. Cultural Sensitivity/Competency SAPRA Programs Measures of Effectiveness Victim Care Lt. Col. Nate Galberth, Dep. Victim Advocacy Director OSD SAPRO. Restricted & Unrestricted Reporting OSD SAPRO. DoD Policy Teresa Scalzo, Esq., Senior Policy Advisor, OSD SAPRO. Legal/Investigations Break Data Case Records OSD SAPRO. Management System (DECRMS) Resources OSD SAPRO. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Wrap Up Ms. Debbie Gray, SAPR Analyst. The Task Force's meeting will be held at Embassy Suites Alexandria—Old Town, Windsor East, 1900 Diagonal RD, Alexandria, VA 22314 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday August 11, 2008 through Friday, August 15, 2008. The meeting is open to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j), 102-3.140 (c), section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, and subject to the procedures outlined in this notice, any member of the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services membership about the stated agenda and/or to give input as to the mission and function of the task force. Though written statements may be submitted at any time for consideration or in response to a stated agenda to a planned meeting, statements must be received in a timely fashion for consideration at a specific meeting. All written statements intended to be considered for the meeting that is the subject of this notice shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services no later that August 4, 2008, and this individual will review all timely submitted written statements and will provide those statements to the task force membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer is provided in this notice or can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements and/or live testimony that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16417 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Missile Defense Advisory Committee Closed Meeting AGENCY: Department of Defense; Missile Defense Agency (MDA). ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine in Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces the following Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee. The need to conduct this meeting was identified less than 15 calendar days prior to the schedule date. As a result, the meeting notice is being published with less than 15 calendar days notice. DATES: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.) ADDRESSES: 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100. Security clearance and visit requests are required for access. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Al Bready, Designated Federal Officer at *mdac@mda.mil,* phone/voice mail 703-695-6438, or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Meeting:* At this meeting, the Committee will receive classified briefings by Missile Defense Agency senior staff, Program Managers, senior Department of Defense leaders, representatives from industry and the Services on the political, technical, and programmatic aspects of developing and deploying space-based sensors and interceptors that could provide for the defense of the U.S. Homeland, deployed forces, allies, and friends from ballistic missile attack. *Agenda:* Topics tentatively scheduled for classified discussion include, but are not limited to preparatory work to review the study terms of reference; Defense Support Program; Space based Infrared Radar System; and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System. *Meeting Accessibility:* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Missile Defense Agency has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Director, Missile Defense Agency, in consultation with the Missile Defense Agency Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the committee's meeting will be closed to the public because they will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). *Committee's Designated Federal Officer:* Mr. Al Bready, *mdac@mda.mil,* phone/voice mail 703-695-6438, or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Missile Defense Advisory Committee, in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word or MS PowerPoint), and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer is as stated above and can also be obtained from the GSA's Federal Advisory Committee Act Database— *https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.* Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Missile Defense Advisory Committee until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Missile Defense Advisory Committee Chairperson and ensure they are provided to all members of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. E8-16410 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2008-OS-0078] Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records AGENCY: Defense Commissary Agency, DoD. ACTION: Notice to amend a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Defense Commissary Agency

(DeCA)is proposing to amend a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: This action will be effective without further notice on August 18, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Defense Commissary Agency, 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna Williamson at

(804)734-8777. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Commissary Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of subsection

(r)of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. ZGC 001 SYSTEM NAME: General Counsel Case Files (June 1, 2001, 66 FR 29777). CHANGES: CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Delete “who may”. Delete the word “defendant” replace with “party”. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Delete entry and replace with “Name of the party bringing the action, witnesses, and other parties; home address; telephone numbers; location; type of case and other details including settlement and resolution.” PURPOSE(S): Delete entry and replace with “The records are used to investigate, evaluate, adjudicate, defend, prosecute, or settle claims or lawsuits.” STORAGE: Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media.” RETRIEVABILITY: Delete “or anticipated litigant”. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Delete entry and replace with “Supervisory Legal Administrative Specialist, Office of the General Counsel, Headquarters, Defense Commissary Agency, 1300 E. Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800.” ZGC 001 SYSTEM NAME: General Counsel Case Files. SYSTEM LOCATION: Office of the General Counsel, Headquarters, Defense Commissary Agency, ATTN: GC, 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Any individual who has filed a claim, a complaint or similar pleading or instituted litigation against the Defense Commissary Agency in a court, administrative body or in an established administrative dispute resolution procedure in which a Defense Commissary Agency employee or the Defense Commissary Agency is named as a party concerning matters under the cognizance of the General Counsel, Defense Commissary Agency. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Name of the party bringing the action, witnesses, other parties; home address, telephone numbers, location, type of case and other details including settlement and resolution. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 5 U.S.C. 301, Department Regulations and 10 U.S.C. 2482, Commissary stores: operation. PURPOSE(S): The records are used to investigate, evaluate, adjudicate, defend, prosecute, or settle claims or lawsuits. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the Defense Commissary Agency's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: Name of litigant and case number. SAFEGUARDS: Paper and automated records are stored in rooms with restricted access in a secure building. Access is limited to the General Counsel staff in performance of their official duties. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records retained for six years after final action, then destroyed. Paper records are shredded. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Supervisory Legal Administrative Specialist, Office of the General Counsel, Headquarters, Defense Commissary Agency, 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Officer, Defense Commissary Agency, 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. The request should contain the individual's full name, address, and telephone number. These items are necessary for the retrieval of information. Requests submitted on behalf of other persons must include their written authorization. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Officer, Defense Commissary Agency, 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. The request should contain the individual's full name, address, and telephone number. These items are necessary for the retrieval of information. Requests submitted on behalf of other persons must include their written authorization. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The Defense Commissary Agency's rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Defense Commissary Agency Directive 30-13; 32 CFR part 327; or may be obtained from the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Officer at 1300 E Avenue, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1800. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: From all sources with information which may impact upon actual or anticipated litigation, *e.g.* , administrative boards, other record systems within DeCA, DoD, and third parties who provide information voluntarily or in response to discovery. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E8-16419 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned Patent AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7 (a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent Application 11/464,001, filed August 11, 2006, entitled “Broad Spectrum Antibacterial Compounds” and foreign rights (PCT/US2006/031550) to Microbiotix, Inc., with its principal place of business at One Innovation Drive, Worchester, Massachusetts, 01605. ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment,

(301)619-6664. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney,

(301)619-7808, both at telefax

(301)619-5034. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see ADDRESSES ). Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E8-16457 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2208-0022] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice to Alter a System of Records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is proposing to alter a system of records in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The proposed action will be effective on August 18, 2008, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicki Short at

(703)428-6508. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 9, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427). Dated: July 11, 2008. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0600-85 DAPE System name: Army Substance Abuse Program (May 9, 2003, 68 FR 24954). Changes: Categories of individuals covered by the system: Delete entry and replace with “Active Army, Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve and family members, Army civilian employees, and military retirees who are screened and/or enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program.” Categories of records in the system: Delete entry and replace with “Copies of patient intake records, progress reports, psychosocial histories, counselor observations and impressions of patient's behavior and rehabilitation progress; copies of medical consultation and laboratory procedures performed, results of biochemical urinalysis for alcohol/drug abuse, Patient Intake/Screening record—PIR; Patient Progress Report—PPR; Resource and Performance Report; and Specimen Custody Document—Drug Testing; electronic copies of Patient Intake/Screening record—PIR; Patient Progress Report—PPR; Resource and Performance Report; and Specimen Custody Document—Drug Testing High Risk behavior statistics, training materials, substance abuse information, user access information, survey data, demographic composites of the data elements and similar or related documents.” Purpose(s): Delete entry and replace with “To identify alcohol and drug abusers within the Army; to treat, counsel, and rehabilitate individuals who participate in the Army Substance Abuse Program; as a management tool to identify trends, judge the magnitude of drug and alcohol abuse, and to measure the effectiveness of drug and alcohol prevention efforts in the Army.” Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: Delete fifth paragraph and replace with “To medical personnel to the extent necessary to meet a bona fide medical emergency or to assess and provide necessary substance abuse treatment.” Add the following uses: “For validated background checks of individuals requesting security clearances with appropriate releases from the individual.” Storage: Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in locked metal containers and electronic storage media.” Retrievability: Delete entry and replace with “By patient's surname, Social Security Number

(SSN)or other individually identifying characteristic.” Safeguards: Delete entry and replace with “Paper records are maintained in locked file cabinets in a restricted access area. Information is accessible only by authorized personnel with appropriate clearance/access in the performance of their duties. Electronic records are stored in a secured accredited database with firewalls and other security measures. All SSN data is encrypted and no names are available. The database hardware is stored in a secured room with limited access.” Retention and disposal: Delete entry and replace with “Permanent. Keep in current files area until no longer needed for conducting business, then retire to Records Holding Area/Army Electronic Archives (RHA/AEA). The RHA/AEA will transfer to the National Archives when record is 20 years old.” System manager(s) and address: Delete entry and replace with “Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20320-3000.” Notification procedure: Add sentence at the end of second paragraph “If an unsworn declaration is executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” If an unsworn declaration is executed outside the United States, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” Denial to amend records in this system can be made only by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.” Record access procedures: Add sentence at the end of second paragraph “If an unsworn declaration is executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” If an unsworn declaration is executed outside the United States, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” Denial to amend records in this system can be made only by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.” A0600-85 DAPE System name: Army Substance Abuse Program. System location: Primary location: Army Substance Abuse Program

(ASAP)rehabilitation/counseling facilities (e.g., Community Counseling Center/ASAP Counseling Facilities) at Army installations and activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of record system notices. Secondary location: Army Center for Substance Abuse Program, 4501 Ford Avenue, Suite 320, Alexandra, VA 22302-1460. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Active Army, Army National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve and family members, Army civilian employees, and military retirees who are screened and/or enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program. Categories of records in the system: Copies of patient intake records, progress reports, psychosocial histories, counselor observations and impressions of patient's behavior and rehabilitation progress; copies of medical consultation and laboratory procedures performed, results of biochemical urinalysis for alcohol/drug abuse, Patient Intake/Screening record—PIR; Patient Progress Report—PPR; Resource and Performance Report; and Specimen Custody Document—Drug Testing. Electronic Copies of Patient Intake/Screening record—PIR; Patient Progress Report—PPR; Resource and Performance Report; and Specimen Custody Document—Drug Testing High Risk behavior statistics, training materials, substance abuse information, user access information, survey data, demographic composites of the data elements and similar or related documents. Authority for maintenance of the system: 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2; Federal Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988; Army Regulation 600-85, Army Substance Abuse Program; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). Purpose(s): To identify alcohol and drug abusers within the Army; to treat, counsel, and rehabilitate individuals who participate in the Army Substance Abuse Program; as a management tool to identify trends, judge the magnitude of drug and alcohol abuse, and to measure the effectiveness of drug and alcohol prevention efforts in the Army. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The Patient Administration Division at the medical treatment facility with jurisdiction is responsible for the release of medical information to malpractice insurers in the event of malpractice litigation or prospect thereof. Information is disclosed only to the following persons/agencies: To health care components of the Department of Veterans Affairs furnishing health care to veterans. To medical personnel to the extent necessary to meet a bona fide medical emergency or to assess and provide necessary substance abuse treatment. For validated background checks of individuals requesting security clearances with appropriate releases from the individual. To qualified personnel conducting scientific research, audits, or program evaluations, provided that a patient may not be identified in such reports, or his or her identity further disclosed by such personnel. In response to a court order based on the showing of good cause in which the need for disclosure and the public's interest is shown to exceed the potential harm that would be incurred by the patient, the physician-patient relationship, and the Army's treatment program. Except as authorized by a court order, no record may be used to initiate or substantiate any criminal charges against a patient or to conduct any investigation of a patient. Note: Records of identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any client/patient, irrespective of whether or when he/she ceases to be a client/patient, maintained in connection with the performance of any alcohol or drug abuse prevention and treatment function conducted, requested, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States, shall, except as provided therein, be confidential and be disclosed only for the purposes and under circumstances expressly authorized in 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2. This statute takes precedence over the Privacy Act of 1974 to the extent that disclosure is more limited. However, access to the record by the individual to whom the record pertains is governed by the Privacy Act. The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices do not apply to this information. Note: This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this system of records notice. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Paper records in locked metal containers and electronic storage media. Retrievability: By patient's surname, Social Security Number

(SSN)or other individually identifying characteristic. Safeguards: Paper records are maintained in locked file cabinets in a restricted access area. Information is accessible only by authorized personnel with appropriate clearance/access in the performance of their duties. Electronic records are stored in a secured accredited database with firewalls and other security measures. All SSN data is encrypted and no names are available. The database hardware is stored in a secured room with limited access. Retention and disposal: Permanent. Keep in current files area until no longer needed for conducting business, then retire to Records Holding Area/Army Electronic Archives (RHA/AEA). The RHA/AEA will transfer to the National Archives when record is 20 years old. System manager(s) and address: Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20320-3000. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address written inquiries to either the commander of the medical center/medical department activity where treatment was obtained or the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs, 4501 Ford Avenue, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA 22302-1460. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of record system notices. Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, current address, telephone number, and signature. If an unsworn declaration is executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” If an unsworn declaration is executed outside the United States, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” Note: Denial to amend records in this system can be made only by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system should address written inquiries to either the commander of the medical center/medical department activity where treatment was obtained or the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs, 4501 Ford Avenue, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA 22302-1460. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of record system notices. Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address and telephone number, and signature. If an unsworn declaration is executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” If an unsworn declaration is executed outside the United States, it shall read “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” Note: Denial to amend records in this system can be made only by the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1. Contesting record procedures: The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager. Record source categories: From the individual by interviews and history statement; abstracts or copies of pertinent medical records; abstracts from personnel records; results of tests; physicians' notes, observations of client's behavior; related notes, papers, and forms from counselor, clinical director, and/or commander. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-16415 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2008-0021] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice to alter a system of records. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army is proposing to alter a system of records in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. DATES: The proposed action will be effective on August 8, 2008 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Dickerson at

(703)428-6513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the **Federal Register** and are available from the address above. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 9, 2008, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget

(UAS)crewmember.” AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; DoD Instruction 6055.1, DoD Safety and Occupational Health Program; Army Regulation 95-1, Aviation Flight Regulations; Army Regulation 95-20, Contractor Flight and Ground Operations; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).” PURPOSE(S): Delete entry and replace with “To record the flying experience, qualifications and training data of each aviator, crew member, UAS operator and flight surgeon in aviation service; and to monitor and manage individual contractor flight and ground personnel records.” STORAGE: Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in file folders and notebooks, and on electronic storage media.” RETRIEVABILITY: Delete entry and replace with “By name, Social Security Number

(SSN)or other personal identifier”. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Delete entry and replace with “PERMANENT. Keep in Current Files Area

(CFA)until no longer needed for conducting business, then retire to Records Holding Area/Army Electronic Archives (RHA/AEA). The Transition Center will pull the most current DA Form 759, Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate-Army, from the Individual Flight Record Folder

(IFRF)and forward it to the Official Military Personnel File

(OMPF)Custodian for inclusion in the soldier's OMPF. The remainder of the IFRF will be given to the soldier upon separation processing at the Transition Center.” SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Delete entry and replace with “Product Manager Aviation Mission Equipment (PM AME), CAFRS, Building 5307, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000.” NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system may visit or address written inquiries to the Flight Operations Section of their current unit, contractor facility or via the CAFRS Help Desk at *cafrs.help@us.army.mil* or *https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/420577.* Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number (SSN), and any details which will help locate the records, current address, and signature.” RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system may visit or address written inquiries to the Flight Operations Section of their current unit, contractor facility or via the CAFRS Help Desk at *cafrs.help@us.army.mil* or *https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/420577.* Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number (SSN), and any details which will help locate the records, current address, and signature.” A0095-1a TRADOC SYSTEM NAME: Centralized Aviation Flight Records System (CAFRS). SYSTEM LOCATION: Sparkman Center, Building 5307, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Army aviators who are members of the Active and Reserve Components and qualified and current in the aircraft to be flown; civilian employees of Government agencies and Government contractors who have appropriate certifications or ratings, flight surgeons or aeromedical physicians' assistants in aviation service, enlisted crew chief/crew members, aerial observers, personnel in non-operational aviation positions, and those restricted or prohibited by statute from taking part in aerial flights. Designated personnel assigned to perform duties as an Unmanned Aerial System

(UAS)crewmember. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: DA Forms 759 and 759-1 (Individual Flight and Flight Certificate Army (Sections I, II, and III)); DA Form 4186 (Medical Recommendations for Flying Duty), DD Form 1821 (Contractor Crewmember Record); Name, Social Security Number (SSN), home address, date of birth, security clearance data, education, waivers, qualifications, disqualifications, re-qualifications, training, proficiency, and experience data, medical and physiological data, approvals to operate Government aircraft, requests for approval or contractor flight crewmember and contractor qualification training, and similar relevant documents. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; DoD Instruction 6055.1, DoD Safety and Occupational Health Program; Army Regulation 95-1, Aviation Flight Regulations; Army Regulation 95-20, Contractor Flight and Ground Operations; and E.O. 9397 (SSN). PURPOSE(S): To record the flying experience, qualifications and training data of each aviator, crew member, UAS operator and flight surgeon in aviation service; and to monitor and manage individual contractor flight and ground personnel records. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: Information may be disclosed to the Federal Aviation Agency and/or the National Transportation Safety Board. The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of system of record notices apply to this record system. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Paper records in file folders and notebooks, and on electronic storage media. RETRIEVABILITY: By name, Social Security Number (SSN), or other personal identifier. SAFEGUARDS: Records are maintained in secure areas available only to designated persons having official need for the record. Automated systems employ computer hardware/software safeguard features and controls which meet administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: PERMANENT. Keep in Current Files Area

(IFRF)and forward it to the Official Military Personnel File

(OMPF)Custodian for inclusion in the soldier's OMPF. The remainder of the IFRF will be given to the soldier upon separation processing at the Transition Center. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Product Manager, Aviation Mission Equipment (PM AME), CAFRS, Sparkman Center, Building 5309, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system may visit or address written inquiries to the Flight Operations Section of their current unit, contractor facility or via the CAFRS Help Desk at *cafrs.help@us.army.mil* or *https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/420577.* Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, and any details which will help locate the records, current address, and signature. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system may visit or address written inquiries to the Flight Operations Section of their current unit, contractor facility or via the CAFRS Help Desk at *cafrs.help@us.army.mil* or *https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/420577.* Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, and any details which will help locate the records, current address, and signature. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The Army's rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: From the individual, Federal Aviation Administration, flight surgeons, evaluation reports, proficiency and readiness tests, and other relevant records and reports. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E8-16416 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Natomas Levee Improvement Program Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project, Sacramento, CA AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; DoD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The action being taken is preparation of an environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) for the Natomas Levee Improvement Program

(NLIP)Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project. The Corps is considering a request to issue both 408 permission to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and 404 permit to Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) for work on the NLIP. Under 33 U.S.C. 408, the Chief of Engineers may grant permission to alter an existing Federal project if it is not injurious to the public interest and does not impair the usefulness of the project. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the District Engineer permits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States if the discharge meets the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404 (b)(1) guidelines and is not contrary to the public interest. The NLIP is located in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, CA. The 408 permission and 404 permit are needed for construction along the landside of the Sacramento River east levee, the Natomas East Main Drain Canal, the Natomas Cross Canal, and the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal. DATES: A public scoping meeting will be held on August 6, 2008 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. at Sierra Health Facility (see ADDRESSES ). Send written comments by August 18, 2008 to (see ADDRESSES ). ADDRESSES: Public Scoping Meeting, Sierra Health, 1321 Garden Highway, Bannon Island room, Sacramento, CA. Send written comments and suggestions concerning this study to Ms. Elizabeth Holland, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Attn: Planning Division (CESPK-PD-R), 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922. Requests to be placed on the mailing list should also be sent to this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action and EIS/EIR should be addressed to Ms. Elizabeth Holland at

(916)557-6763, e-mail *Elizabeth.g.holland@usace.army.mil* or by mail (see ADDRESSES ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *1. Proposed Action.* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing an EIS/EIR to analyze the impacts of the work proposed by SAFCA to implement the NLIP Phase 3. The NLIP Phase 3 is proposed by SAFCA to reduce the risk of flooding to portions of the City and County of Sacramento and Sutter County, CA lying within the Natomas Basin. *2. Alternatives.* The EIS/EIR will address an array of flood risk management alternatives. Alternatives analyzed during the investigation will consist of a combination of one or more flood protection measures. These measures include raising the existing levee in place, constructing seepage berms, constructing adjacent setback levees, installing seepage wells and seepage cutoff walls, and relocating irrigation ditches. *3. Scoping Process.* a. A public scoping meeting will be held on August 6, 2008 to present information to the public and to receive comments from the public. This meeting will begin a process to involve concerned individuals, and local, State, and Federal agencies. b. Significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS/EIR include effects on hydraulic, wetlands and other waters of the U.S., vegetation and wildlife resources, special-status species, cultural resources, land use, fisheries, water quality, air quality, transportation, and socioeconomics. The EIS/EIR will also evaluate the cumulative effects of the proposed NLIP and other related projects in the study area. c. The Corps is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. d. A 45-day public review period will be provided for individuals and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS/EIR circulation. *4. Availability.* The draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be available for public review and comment in late 2008. Dated: July 9, 2008 Thomas Chapman, P.E., COL, EN, Commanding. [FR Doc. E8-16445 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-EZ-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles, CA AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (USACE) and the Los Angeles Harbor Department

(Port)have prepared a joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles, California. This Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the affected resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources as a result of the Proposed Action and alternatives. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to dispose of approximately 3.0 million cubic yards of dredge material required to complete the Channel Deepening Project and to beneficially reuse the dredge material within the Port of Los Angeles. Three Alternatives have been analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, including No Action. Alternative 1, Port Development and Environmental Enhancement was developed with a focus on using dredge material for port development and environmental enhancement and would involve use and development of the following disposal sites: Berths 243-245, the Northwest Slip, CSWH Expansion, the Eelgrass Habitat Area, and LA-2. Alternative 2, Environmental Enhancement and Ocean Disposal was developed with a focus on environmental enhancement related uses of the remaining material and does not include any disposal options associated with port development. Under Alternative 2, dredge material would be disposed at the CSWH Expansion, Eelgrass Habitat Area, LA-2 and the Anchorage Road Soil Storage Site. Under Alternative 3, the No Action Alternative, no further dredging would take place and the Channel Deepening Project would not be completed. This Notice also serves as the Public Notice/Notice of Availability for the Section 404 Permit under Clean Water Act (CWA). A preliminary application has been received for a Department of the Army permit for the activity described herein. The Corps is considering an application submitted by the Port for a permit, in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, to complete dredging activities outside of the Federal Channel and placement of the dredge material in waters of the United States in the Port of Los Angeles. This SEIS/SEIR would be used by the Corps as part of their application review process. The Corps and the Port independently determined under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), respectively, that there are potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, and an Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report are required. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, CESPL-PD-RN, c/o Joy Jaiswal, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joy Jaiswal, Chief, Ecosystem Planning Section, at

(213)452-3851 or e-mail at *Jyotsna.I.Jaiswal@usace.army.mil.* *Additional Information:* This Draft SEIS/SEIR has been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)to be published in the **Federal Register** and is available for a forty-five

(45)day public review period. The public review period for the Draft SEIS/EIR will be from July 18, 2008 to September 1, 2008. Please forward your comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR by mail, email, or fax to the contacts listed below by September 1, 2008. Ms. Joy Jaiswal, Chief, Ecosystem Planning Section, Attn: Ms. Megan Wong, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, California 90053-2325, Fax:

(213)452-4204, *Megan.T.Wong@usace.army.mil* ; or Dr. Ralph Appy, Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD), 425 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, CA 90731. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Authorization The Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project was authorized for construction by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Construction began in October 2002 and is currently continuing using previously approved disposal areas. 2. Background The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department

(LAHD)administers the Port of Los Angeles. The Port comprises 45 kilometers (28 miles) of waterfront and 3,035 hectares (7,500 acres) of land and water. LAHD administers automobile, container, omni, lumber, cruise ship, liquid and dry bulk terminals, and commercial fishing facilities. For recreational activities the Port of Los Angeles provides slips for 5,000 pleasure craft, sport fishing boats, and charter vessels. Community facilities include a water front youth center, a boat launch ramp, and a public swimming beach. Educational facilities include the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium and the Los Angeles Maritime Museum. This SEIS/SEIR is a supplement to the 2000 SEIS/SEIR that was prepared for the Channel Deepening Project, which was a supplement to the 1998 Channel Deepening Project EIR and the 1992 Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project EIS/EIR the modifications required to complete disposal of dredged material from the authorized project. This SEIS/SEIR addresses impacts associated with providing additional disposal capacity of approximately 3 mcy required to complete the Channel Deepening Project. Additional disposal capacity is required to complete the deepening of the navigation channel and berthing areas to −53 feet Mean Lower Low Water

(MLLW)at container terminals along the deepened channel and the removal of dredge material that was temporarily used as surcharge at the Southwest Slip. This project meets a public need for safe and efficient commercial navigation. 3. Hearing Process The Corps Los Angeles District and the Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD or Port) will jointly conduct a Public Hearing for the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles, California Draft SEIS/SEIR on August 6, 2008 at 6:30 p.m., to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the Draft SEIS/SEIR (Corps File Number 2008-00662-AOA). Participation in the Public Hearing by Federal, State and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons are encouraged. This meeting is to be conducted in English and Spanish. Members of the public who wish to communicate and listen entirely in Spanish are encouraged to attend this meeting. The Public Hearing will be held at: Banning's Landing Community Center, 100 East Water Street, Wilmington, CA 90744. 4. Availability of the Draft SEIS/SEIR a. The Draft SEIS/SEIR for the Proposed Action is being distributed directly to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for comment during the 45-day formal review period in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines and 40 CFR Section 1506.10 of the CEQ NEPA Regulations. During the 45-day public review period, which begins on July 18, 2008 and ends on September 1, 2008, the Draft SEIS/SEIR is available for general public review at the following locations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Environmental Resources Branch, 915 Wilshire Blvd., 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90053 Los Angeles Public Library, San Pedro Branch, 921 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 Los Angeles Public Library, Central Branch, 630 West 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Port of Los Angeles, Environmental Management Division, 425 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 Los Angeles Public Library, Wilmington Branch, 1300 North Avalon Boulevard, Wilmington, CA 90744 b. Participation of affected Federal, State, and local resource agencies, and concerned interest groups/individuals are encouraged on the Draft SEIS/SEIR during the public review period. Public participation will be especially important in receiving input on environmental analysis for the Proposed Action, and associated Alternatives in finalizing the SEIS/SEIR. Those wishing to provide comments relevant to the environmental or social impacts that should be included or considered in updating the environmental analysis can furnish this information by writing to the point of contact indicated above. c. The Final SEIS/SEIR document will incorporate public concerns in the analysis of impacts associated with the Proposed Action and associated project alternatives. The Final SEIS/SEIR will address the comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In compliance with NEPA, the Final SEIS/SEIR will be sent out for a 30-day public review period. Copies of the Final SEIS/SEIR will be furnished to all who commented on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and to anyone who requests a copy. The final step involves preparing and signing a Record of Decision

(ROD)by lead Federal Agency for the Federal SEIS. The lead CEQA agency certifies the SEIR and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The ROD is a concise summary of the decisions made by the USACE from among the alternatives presented in the Final SEIS/SEIR. A certified SEIR indicates that the environmental document adequately assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to CEQA. Any required permit would be issued concurrently or soon after the issuance of the ROD. Dated: July 9, 2008. Anthony G. Reed, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, Deputy District Commander. [FR Doc. E8-16458 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-KF-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Potential Multipurpose Projects for Ecosystem Restoration, Flood Risk Management, and Recreation Development Within and Along Johnson Creek, Arlington, Tarrant County, TX AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The study is being conducted in response to the authority contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. Pertinent text is quoted below: SEC. 117. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

(a)IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280-281) is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report entitled Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation, dated March 30, 2006, at a total cost of $80,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $52,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,000,000 if the Secretary determines that the project is technically sound and environmentally acceptable. An initial assessment based on the authority indicates that the modifications outlined within the report “Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation” require preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)to review the project proposal based upon magnitude of modifications proposed and potential controversy related to degree of initial short term impacts. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the DEIS will be prepared to evaluate and compare ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation alternatives within and along Johnson Creek and its floodplain within the City of Arlington, Texas. In addition, the local cost share sponsor (City of Arlington) is proceeding with construction of Phase 1a of the project located between Randol Mill Road and Sanford Streets and has requested that the federal government reimburse a portion of their expenditures. The government's decision will be based upon analyses within the EIS to determine technical soundness and environmental acceptability of the proposal. The general study area will be bound on the upstream by Interstate Highway 20 and at the downstream at Interstate Highway 30. DATES: A public scoping meeting will be held on July 31, 2008 beginning at 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bob Duncan Center, located within Vandergriff Park, 2800 South Center Street, Arlington, TX 76014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions pertaining to the proposed action and DEIS can be addressed to: Ms. Amy Archambeau, Project Manager, CESWF-PER-PP, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300,

(817)886-1867. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The study area lies within an area of rapid growth in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas metropolitan area. Johnson Creek has experienced a history of flooding, bank and stream bed erosion and habitat degradation during the past 60 years that has led to several studies and local and federal actions to reduce damages. Following WRDA, 1999, a non-structural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project was initiated that resulted in the acquisition and removal of 140 residential structures from the 25-year floodplain and acquisition of 155 acres of floodplain lands for restoration. Approximately 90 acres of this land was planted with a variety of native grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees to improve the riparian habitat along Johnson Creek. Alternatives for ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation will be developed and evaluated based on ongoing fieldwork and data collection and past studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the City of Arlington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. Ecosystem restoration alternatives will include bank protection; natural channel design restoring, protecting and expanding the riparian corridor; improving aquatic habitat including creating riffle-pool complexes; and constructing wetlands. It is anticipated that ecosystem restoration measures would improve water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and minimize erosion and scouring along and within Johnson Creek. Alternatives for flood damage reduction measures will be evaluated from both a non-structural and structural aspect. Non-structural measures will include acquisition and removal of structures or flood proofing. Structural measures will include channel modification by increasing widths and depths and straightening or a combination of these measures. Recreation measures will include multipurpose trails and passive recreation features, such as interpretive guidance and media and picnic areas. Recreation measures will be developed to a scope and scale compatible with proposed ecosystem restoration measures without significantly diminishing ecosystem benefits. The public will be invited to participate in the scoping process, invited to attend public meetings, and given the opportunity to review the DEIS. The first public scoping meeting will be on (see DATES & ADDRESSES ). Subsequent public meetings, if deemed necessary, will be announced in the local news media. Release of the DEIS for public comment is scheduled for December 2009. The exact release date, once established, will be announced through mailings to known interested individuals, agencies and officials and in the local news media. Future coordination with other agencies and public scoping will be conducted to ensure full and open participation and aid in the development of the DEIS. All affected Federal, state, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties are hereby invited to participate. Future coordination will also be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS will furnish information on threatened and endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the USFWS will also be requested to provide support with planning aid and to provide a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. The State Historic Preservation Office will be consulted as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Dated: July 11, 2008. Jimmy D. Baggett, Acting District Engineer. [FR Doc. E8-16446 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-20-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Stakeholder Representative Members of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: The Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting applications for stakeholder representative membership on the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). Members are sought to participate on a committee to represent various categories of interests within the Missouri River basin. The MRRIC is being formed to advise the Corps on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries and to provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities currently underway. The Corps is required to establish the MRRIC by the U.S. Congress through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Section 5018. DATES: The agency must receive completed applications no later than August 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail completed applications to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division (Attn: MRRIC), 1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 365, Omaha, NE 68102-4909 or e-mail completed applications to *Missouri.Water.Management@nwd02.usace.army.mil.* Please put “MRRIC” in the subject line. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary S. Roth, 402-996-3852. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The establishment of the MRRIC is in the public interest and will provide support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ; Sec. 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA)of 1986, Public Law 99-662; Sec. 334(a) of WRDA 1999, Public Law 106-53, and Sec. 5018 of WRDA 2007, Public Law 110-114. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, does not apply to the MRRIC. A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter and application forms are available electronically at *http://www.moriverrecovery.org/mrrp/f?p=136:3.* The first meeting of MRRIC is anticipated to be October 1, 2008. *Purpose and Scope of the Committee.* The duties of MRRIC cover two areas: 1. The Committee will provide guidance to the Corps, and affected Federal agencies, State agencies, or Native American Indian Tribes on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine the actions required to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, to recover federally listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act, and to restore the river's ecosystem to prevent further declines among other native species. This study is identified in Section 5018(a) of the WRDA. It will result in a single, comprehensive plan to guide the implementation of mitigation, recovery, and restoration activities in the Missouri River Basin. This plan is referred to as the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP). For more information about the MRERP go to *http://www.moriverrecovery.org/mrrp/f?p=136:11.* 2. The MRRIC will also provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at *http://www.moriverrecovery.org/mrrp/f?p=136:1.* 3. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests. *Administrative Support.* To the extent authorized by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Corps will provide funding and administrative support for the Committee. *Committee Membership.* Federal agencies with programs affecting the Missouri River may be members of the MRRIC through a separate process with the Corps. States and Federally recognized Native American Indian tribes, as described in the Charter, are eligible for Committee membership through an appointment process. Interested State and Tribal government representatives should contact the Corps for information about the appointment process. In accordance with the Charter for the MRRIC, stakeholder membership is limited to 28 people, with each member having an alternate. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Stakeholder members and alternates must represent an interest category listed below, with a maximum of two members and two alternates representing any one category: a. Navigation; b. Irrigation; c. Flood Control; d. Fish and Wildlife; e. Recreation; f. Water Quality; g. Water Supply; h. Agriculture; i. Conservation Districts; j. Waterways Industries; k. Major Tributaries; l. Thermal Power; m. Hydropower; n. At Large/Other Interests (e.g., cultural and historic preservation); o. Local Government; and p. Environmental/Conservation Organizations. Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Members and alternates of the Committee shall not receive any compensation for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee shall not be reimbursed by the Federal Government. *Application for Stakeholder Membership.* Persons who believe that they are or will be affected by the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities and are not employees of federal agencies, tribes, or state agencies, may apply for stakeholder membership on the MRRIC. Applications for stakeholder membership may be obtained electronically at *http://www.moriverrecovery.org.* Completed applications may be emailed or mailed to the location listed (see ADDRESSES ). In order to be considered, each application must include: 1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person wishes to represent; 2. A written statement describing how the applicant meets the criteria for membership (described below) and how their contributions will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC; 3. Evidence that demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest in the Missouri River basin; 4. In the interest of transparency and openness, the applicant must disclose any affiliations with the involved federal agencies listed below such as recent or current consulting contracts, current employment contracts, or familial relations to any current agency staff or appointees. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. • National Park Service. • U.S. Geological Survey. • U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. • Western Area Power Administration. • U.S. Forest Service. • Federal Highway Administration. • Maritime Administration. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. • Natural Resources Conservation Service. • U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. • U.S. Department of Interior. • U.S. Department of Commerce. • U.S. Department of Agriculture. • U.S. Department of Energy. • U.S. Department of Transportation. To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on August 22, 2008, at the location indicated (see ADDRESSES ). Full consideration will be given to all complete applications received by the specified due date. Persons wishing to apply as alternates are strongly encouraged to coordinate with other individuals applying for membership. Where possible, alternates should apply with the individual seeking membership in an interest area. Alternates must apply in the same manner as stakeholder members and should include a recommendation from a member applicant. *Application Review Process.* Committee stakeholder applications will be forwarded to the MRRIC Planning Group, which assisted in the development of the Charter. The MRRIC Planning Group will provide membership recommendations to the Corps. The Corps is responsible for appointing stakeholder members. The MRRIC Planning Group and the Corps will consider applications using the following criteria: • Ability to commit the time required. • Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns. • Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures to be adopted by the Committee. • Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative. • Demonstration of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed. • Ability to contribute to the overall balance of representation on MRRIC. All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application. *Certification.* I hereby certify that the establishment of the MRRIC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Corps by the Endangered Species Act and other statutes. Dated: July 9, 2008. Lawrence J. Cieslik, Deputy Director, Programs—Missouri River, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [FR Doc. E8-16455 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-62-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 16, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(VR)Agency Practices. *Frequency:* One time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 80. Burden Hours: 100. *Abstract:* The Rehabilitation Services Administration

(RSA)is sponsoring a 24-month study entitled, “Targeted Evaluation of State Vocational Rehabilitation

(VR)agency practices, which will collect information about VR agency practices in several areas. As part of the study, RSA plans to conduct a one-time survey of state VR agencies to collection information about their use of quality assurance procedures and third-party cooperative arrangements. The study will identify promising practices, analyze the effects of specific practices on VR program outcomes and consumers served, and provide information to assist RSA in its efforts to help state agencies ensure effective and efficient delivery of VR services. A third topic included in the study will be addressed through other activities. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3756. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16426 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 16, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(APR)that contains activities and services that have been implemented, the cost of providing such activities and services, the number of participating students, and contributions from private organizations. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3763. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16427 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 16, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(5)how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Dated: July 14, 2008. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Institute of Education Sciences *Type of Review:* Reinstatement. *Title:* Impact Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. *Frequency:* Annually. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 5,032. Burden Hours: 4,999. *Abstract:* The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is a five year school choice program that provides scholarships for children in low-income families in Washington, DC. This evaluation uses a randomized control trial to compare the outcomes of eligible applicants who received scholarships to eligible applicants who did not receive a scholarship. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3767. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16428 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or via fax to

(202)395-6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response “Comment: [insert OMB number], [insert abbreviated collection name, e.g., “Upward Bound Evaluation”]. Persons submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: July 14, 2008. James Hyler, Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Vocational and Adult Education *Type of Review:* New. *Title:* Strengthening Adult Reading Instructional Practices (SARIP). *Frequency:* Learner respondents will report twice; Instructor respondents will report once for two instruments and weekly for 15 weeks. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* Responses: 4,734. Burden Hours: 1,431. *Abstract:* The SARIP Study is an initial investigation of whether the Study Achievement in Reading

(STAR)training and materials are effective in developing adult basic education

(ABE)instructors' capability to deliver evidence-based reading instruction and consequently, in improving intermediate-level (4th-8.9th grade equivalence) adult learners' reading skills. The study will employ a quasi-experimental design to examine whether learners who are taught by ABE instructors that have been trained in the STAR methods and materials and have become proficient in these methods make greater gains in developing their reading skills compared to learners who have been taught by ABE instructors that have not participated in STAR. The treatment learners will be compared to data from a matched sample of adult learners that have not participated in STAR. The comparison group will be drawn from extant data from two previous studies on adult learners' development of reading skills. The learner data collected in the SARIP study will be used by the U.S. Department of Education to assess the preliminary learner reading outcomes from the STAR intervention and to determine whether a more rigorous evaluation of STAR should be undertaken at this point in the implementation of STAR. The data collected in the SARIP study about the delivery of instruction by teachers trained in STAR will be used by the U.S. Department of Education to review the STAR training and to determine whether modifications may be needed in the STAR training. The information about ABE programs collected in the study will be used by the U.S. Department of Education and state adult education offices to provide guidance to local ABE providers about the types of ABE program practices that may support the delivery of effective reading instruction. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3681. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16429 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 15, 2008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues:

(1)Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department;

(2)will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3)is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4)how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(GMPP)with the goal of approving up to ten States to incorporate growth models in school AYP determinations under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). As a condition of participation in GMPP, States are required to participate in an evaluation. The evaluation is designed to provide a more comprehensive picture of GMPP. Authorization to conduct this study is provided by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110), Part E, Section 1501. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3759. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E8-16430 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of the Deputy Secretary; Opportunity To Participate in a National Math Panel Forum To Help Improve the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics Based on the Findings and Recommendations of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's Final Report AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: National Math Panel Forum participation. SUMMARY: For students to compete in the 21st-century global economy, knowledge of and proficiency in mathematics are critical. Today's high school graduates need to have solid mathematics skills—whether they are headed to college or to the workforce. To help ensure our nation's future competitiveness and economic viability, President George W. Bush created the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (National Math Panel) in April 2006. The Panel was charged with reviewing the best available scientific evidence and making recommendations on improving mathematics education with a focus on readiness for and success in algebra and mathematics education in grades K-8. The National Math Panel's final report, * Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel* , was issued on March 13, 2008. The report contains 45 findings and recommendations on numerous topics, including curricular content, learning processes, instructional practices and materials, teachers, assessments, and future research priorities. In response to a National Math Panel recommendation, the U.S. Department of Education, in partnership with the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, is hosting a National Math Panel Forum (Forum) to bring together various organizations and other interested parties to discuss ways to engage their members or constituents in discussions about the National Math Panel's findings and recommendations and how the organizations and parties can collaborate and coordinate efforts to use the findings to improve mathematics education in the United States. DATES: Registration to participate in and attend the Forum will open on July 16, 2008 and close on Friday, August 8, 2008. *Forum Dates:* Monday, October 6, 2008—Evening Reception—(Times to be determined). Tuesday, October 7, 2008—Forum— (Times to be determined). *Location:* Washington, DC area. (The National Math Panel Web site, *http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel* , will be updated when the exact location and times have been set for the Forum. Those who expressed interest in participating will be notified of the update). *Registration Process:* Interested organizations and parties should complete an online registration form. The registration form is located at: *http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel* and will be available at the start of registration on July 16, 2008. Correspondence should be sent via e-mail or fax to: National Math Panel Forum, c/o Ida Eblinger Kelley, Office of Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education, e-mail: *NationalMathPanel@ed.gov* , FAX: 202-205-9133; or c/o William McCallum, Chair, Conference Board of Mathematics Sciences, e-mail: *wmc@math.arizona.edu.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 13, 2008, the National Math Panel presented its final report to the President and the Secretary of Education. During the course of two years, expert panelists, including a number of leading mathematicians, cognitive psychologists, and educators, reviewed more than 16,000 research publications and policy reports and received public testimony from 110 individuals. In addition, the Panel reviewed commentary from 160 organizations and individuals, and analyzed survey results from 743 active teachers of algebra before preparing the final report with policy advice on how to improve mathematics achievement for all students in the United States. The National Math Panel's final report calls on the nation to improve the “delivery system in mathematics education—the system that translates mathematical knowledge into value and ability for the next generation.” Furthermore, the report states: “Positive results can be achieved in a reasonable time at accessible cost, but a consistent, wise, community-wide effort will be required. Education in the United States has many participants in many locales—teachers, students, and parents; state school officers, school board members, superintendents, and principals; curriculum developers, textbook writers, and textbook editors; those who develop assessment tools; those who prepare teachers and help them to continue their development; those who carry out relevant research; association leaders and government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. All carry responsibilities. All can be important to success. “The network of these many participants is linked through interacting national associations. A coordinated national approach toward improved mathematics education will require an annual forum of their leaders for at least a decade. The Panel recommends that the U.S. Secretary of Education take the lead in convening the forum initially, charge it to organize in a way that will sustain an effective effort, and request a brief annual report on the mutual agenda adopted for the year ahead.” To read the National Math Panel's final report and Reports of the Task Groups and Subcommittees please visit: *http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel* . Goals of the Forum To answer the National Math Panel's call to build a sustained effort to improve mathematics education, the U.S. Department of Education and the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences are requesting educational, scholarly, business, and community organizations and other interested parties to participate in a Forum with the goal of creating a network or networks committed to taking steps for the years to come to improve mathematics education, using the findings and recommendations of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel as a platform for action. The long-term goal of this effort is to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in order to prepare our students to succeed in algebra and higher-level mathematics by addressing the National Math Panel's evidence-based findings and recommendations. The ultimate goal is to ensure that U.S. children have the skills to pursue careers in mathematics and sciences, as well as to compete in this increasingly competitive global economy as informed citizens. Forum Focus The Forum in October will be the first in a series of forums. Understanding that the panel's findings are extensive and cover many areas, this initial Forum will focus on four of the seven National Math Panel recommendation topics. These topics include the following: —Teachers and Teacher Education —Learning Processes —Instructional Materials —Research Policies and Mechanisms Other topics, including Curricular Content, Instructional Practices, and Assessment, may also be discussed during the Forum and will be addressed in future forums. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the forum (e.g., interpreting services, assistance listening devices, or materials in alternative format) should notify Ida Kelley at

(202)401-6143 or *Ida.Kelley@ed.gov* no later than Friday, September 12, 2008. We will attempt to meet requests for accommodations after this date but cannot guarantee their availability. The forum site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Participation All interested organizations and parties committed to improving the teaching and learning of mathematics in this country are encouraged to participate in the Forum. Participants will be asked to complete online registration materials that address the following: —A description of the specific steps or actions the organization or party is planning, or will plan, to take, building on the platform of the National Math Panel's findings and recommendations related to the four topics listed above; —A brief statement of why the organization or party is interested in participating, along with a description of the organization's or party's resources to carry out the plan, including existing programs or efforts that could support the goals of the Forum; and —A commitment to send a team of 2-4 individuals to the Forum. Organizations that seek to participate in the Forum should submit their registration by August 8, 2008, at *http://www.ed.gov/MathPanel.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Math Panel Forum, c/o Ida Eblinger Kelley, Office of Communications and Outreach, U.S. Department of Education, E-mail: *NationalMathPanel@ed.gov,* Phone: 202-401-6143, FAX: 202-205-9133, or c/o William McCallum, Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, e-mail: *wmc@math.arizona.edu.* *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

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

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Raymond Simon, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. [FR Doc. E8-16423 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. Date and Time: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 12 Noon-3 p.m. Place: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005, (Metro Stop: Metro Center). Agenda: Commissioners will hold a workshop discussion on Preparing for Election Day 2008 and Statewide Voter Registration Databases. Commissioners will receive a briefing regarding the Research Department Work Plan. The Commission will consider other administrative matters. This meeting will be open to the public. PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone:

(202)566-3100. Thomas R. Wilkey, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission. [FR Doc. 08-1449 Filed 7-16-08; 1:33 pm]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

CFR

U.S. Code